ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17, R.S.V.
Read these three questions and see if you can find what they have in common: How many 3-cent stamps are there in a dozen? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Did Jesus accept Peter when he denied his Lord?
Did you catch what it was that they have in common? In each case the question itself implies a misleading assumption. Being so concerned to give a right answer to the question, we fail to stop and analyze the assumption critically.
It's the false assumption in that third question we need to look at today. It assumes that the only way Jesus can relate to a deliberate denial is through rejection. It assumes that God's condemnation of the sinner is itself the major consequence of all sin; that if God didn't reject the sinner, He wouldn't be dealing adequately with sin.
One of the most persistent emotional myths is the belief that love does not deal directly enough with sin. This myth holds that sin needs stern, harsh firmness if it's to be eradicated. It believes that love is too passive, too gentle, to do that. Perhaps we have picked up these ideas from parents or teachers whose discipline methods held only one weapon in the arsenal: harsh rejection. More likely, not many of us have ever really experienced the potent vitality of love, and we resort to rejection simply because we know nothing else. Unfortunately, we expect God to do the same in His dealing with us.
People who study the learning patterns of young children, especially what blocks learning, have agreed on one vital fact: Mental anguish inhibits learning. To condemn as a means of teaching will assure that learning won't take place. People burdened with guilt cannot hear the teacher's message, and to fail to accept is to condemn. Since Jesus came to this planet to teach us about His Father, is it any wonder that He came not to condemn? Would people hear His gracious message if every sermon brought new condemnation? He could not both condemn and save,
Did Jesus reject Peter when he denied his Lord? We should ask, "What purpose would it have fulfilled? Did Peter need more pain in his heart than he had just inflicted upon himself? Did he need an extra burden of rejection?" How, then, could he have learned of his Friend's forgiveness?
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17, R.S.V.
Read these three questions and see if you can find what they have in common: How many 3-cent stamps are there in a dozen? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Did Jesus accept Peter when he denied his Lord?
Did you catch what it was that they have in common? In each case the question itself implies a misleading assumption. Being so concerned to give a right answer to the question, we fail to stop and analyze the assumption critically.
It's the false assumption in that third question we need to look at today. It assumes that the only way Jesus can relate to a deliberate denial is through rejection. It assumes that God's condemnation of the sinner is itself the major consequence of all sin; that if God didn't reject the sinner, He wouldn't be dealing adequately with sin.
One of the most persistent emotional myths is the belief that love does not deal directly enough with sin. This myth holds that sin needs stern, harsh firmness if it's to be eradicated. It believes that love is too passive, too gentle, to do that. Perhaps we have picked up these ideas from parents or teachers whose discipline methods held only one weapon in the arsenal: harsh rejection. More likely, not many of us have ever really experienced the potent vitality of love, and we resort to rejection simply because we know nothing else. Unfortunately, we expect God to do the same in His dealing with us.
People who study the learning patterns of young children, especially what blocks learning, have agreed on one vital fact: Mental anguish inhibits learning. To condemn as a means of teaching will assure that learning won't take place. People burdened with guilt cannot hear the teacher's message, and to fail to accept is to condemn. Since Jesus came to this planet to teach us about His Father, is it any wonder that He came not to condemn? Would people hear His gracious message if every sermon brought new condemnation? He could not both condemn and save,
Did Jesus reject Peter when he denied his Lord? We should ask, "What purpose would it have fulfilled? Did Peter need more pain in his heart than he had just inflicted upon himself? Did he need an extra burden of rejection?" How, then, could he have learned of his Friend's forgiveness?
RSS Feed
