Doctrine

Scale Theology

I’ve been thinking about the idea of Scale Theology. That’s the snappy term occasionally used in my church (and probably others, I can’t imagine it’s unique) for a belief in salvation by good deeds. The essence is that when you die, if the good stuff you did outweighs the bad, you get a pass into Heaven. If not, well, you can imagine what happens. Obviously, any church which teaches salvation by grace through faith does not subscribe to Scale Theology.

Naturally, I agree that Scale Theology is useless nonsense. There are several reasons for this. First, is there anyone on the planet who would believe they hadn’t done enough good? And if there were, would it be true? Second, everyone’s idea of what constitutes “good” deeds is different. One person might think it means going to church, being nice to people, and respecting authority. Another might think it means being on the front lines of battle. Another might believe it’s all about how much money you donate. Third, ditto on the idea of “bad” deeds. We might all agree that, say, Hitler was one seriously bad man. But how about the kid who bullied you all through middle school? Is he as bad? You might think so, if you’re the seventh grader getting beat up. Finally, how much good one would have to do to outweigh the bad is also in question. Take that middle school bully. What would he need to do to make up for his childish actions?

Having established that I don’t in any way subscribe to Scale Theology, I do want to bring up one minor issue. Churches that emphasize salvation by grace through faith sometimes fail to acknowledge that we also need to do good things. It’s often framed in terms of “storing up our treasures in heaven” or that doing good deeds demonstrates that we are showing outward signs of an inward faith. Sometimes, the balance is tipped in favor of volunteering at church rather than giving our time and money outside the church. In any case, churches often go overboard in trying to make sure no one is confused about our salvation not being dependent on our actions. Churches that encourage, emphasize, and celebrate social justice may be sneered at, and are often perceived as promoting the dreaded Scale Theology.

The problem with that kind of open condemnation is that it’s unfounded. Social justice-oriented churches don’t necessarily buy into Scale Theology. It’s not that anyone believes that the power of salvation rests squarely on G-d’s shoulders. It’s that social justice Christians believe that we are called to, that we must, be obedient to Jesus. The difference is not in whether a person or church subscribes to Scale Theology. The difference is in why one thinks good deeds are important. We don’t do good deeds to buy our ticket into Heaven. We don’t do it to earn brownie points with the Lord. We don’t do it because it’s going to make someone proud of us, look good on a college application, sound important at a job interview, or make people like us better. We do it because Jesus expressly stated that we are to care for the needy. He said it plainly. He said it in parables. He said it repeatedly. The Apostles lived it. Paul repeated it. James nearly pounded it into the ground. Which part of that are we not getting?

Another flaw when talking about Scale Theology is the belief that anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Born Again is automatically in the Scale Theology camp. There’s no room for anyone to have natural compassion. Doing good is dismissed as a misguided attempt at purchasing the admission to the Pearly Gates. But what if it’s not? What if we simply can’t admit that it isn’t the mere act of putting faith in Christ which drives the human heart? There are people out there who, believing there is no god, think it’s our responsibility to care for one another. There are people who sincerely don’t want others to suffer and are brokenhearted over the terrible things that happen to people. Out of that compassion, they work to care for life on this planet in all its forms. I know these people exist; I’ve met them. Not one of them thinks that doing good in this world is the basis of getting into Heaven after death. (It’s especially important to note that many of these people don’t even believe there is a heaven, or anything else, after death. Therefore, Scale Theology is irrelevant.)

We need to stop worrying about whether focusing on doing good is sending the wrong message about salvation. We simply need to begin living as Jesus intended us to.

What Is Sin?

Doctrine, Morality, Sin

I have been thinking about the concept of sin. What is it, exactly? Is it just a list of the things we are supposed to avoid doing or failing to do? It must be more than that, because even Jesus didn’t seem to have this concept in mind.

Following through on that thought, I considered the ways in which what we do, even within a church, might constitute sin if we read the Bible with strict literal interpretation. For example, some churches do not allow women to preach sermons or be senior pastors. Are the churches that do out of alignment with G-d’s will, and therefore in sin? Some churches believe that tongues is a gift still given in modern-day churches. Are the ones who do not encourage the practice of this gift also failing to do as God commands? When doctrine gets out of hand, this is the end result—that we really have no idea what is or isn’t sin anymore.

I wondered if it might mainly boil down to being selfish vs. being selfless. In other words, what G-d wants from us is that we should live always trying to keep the other person in mind. But that has its failings, too. For example, which is more selfless, to attack the person trying to murder your child, or to take the bullet yourself? If sin is a matter of where your heart is, then why do we concern ourselves with the salvation of unselfish atheists? It seems obvious that being a Christian isn’t necessarily the litmus test of one’s moral character.

My worst area of failure is when it comes to my kids. I get so upset and disappointed when they mess up, especially when they seem to believe their behavior was justified. I don’t show them nearly the same level of mercy and grace that G-d shows us. I think that maybe we are looking at it wrong. We see G-d as being more angry about our failures than he is pleased with our successes. G-d is more upset that there are gay people than he is happy that missionaries are providing clean water in Uganda.

The problem is, I don’t think that’s true. We are attributing a human failing to G-d. We are more upset when our kids screw up than we are proud when they do what we expect. We are much quicker to punish bad behavior than to reward good behavior. Heck, this is even true in schools. Kids are sent to the principal for hitting each other, but nor for standing up for a friend or doing well on a test.

There seems to be, as I’ve said before, a tension between personal purity and social ministry. But the more we focus on Jesus’ own words about our conduct (mostly concerned with caring for others), the more likely we are to avoid the pitfalls of internal corruption. Perhaps that is the summary of the difference between actual sin and doctrinal purity.That’s not how G-d sees us. Certainly, He knows we are flawed. But His love for us is far greater than our weaknesses. He isn’t overwhelmingly concerned whether we’ve gotten the finer points of Biblical interpretation down.

Let’s start living like we mean our faith.

Inside and Out

Doctrine, Salvation, Social Justice

We talk a lot about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I thought I’d spend a little time on the subject because in some Christian circles, it is a common to compare theology based on the perceived difference.

An oft-used explanation for “works-based” theology is that it is like a scale: Our good deeds and bad will be weighed, and whichever wins determines our fate. Arguments against scale theology are that we cannot ever do enough to earn G-d’s favor and that when asked, we would never put ourselves in the “didn’t do enough” camp. I want to go on record as saying that I believe both of those things to be true. However, there are some complications and I think they deserve some discussion.

First, we need to be clear about what we mean my “works.” Does that mean avoiding naughty behavior (personal morality), or does that mean feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and in prison (social ministry)? Evangelical churches, which are solidly in the salvation-by-grace-through-faith camp, emphasize personal morality as vital to our spiritual journey, but fail to include social ministry. This is a form of works-based salvation. It amounts to saying, “You may have said the magic words, but it’s clear from your behavior that you didn’t really mean it.”

Second, the emphasis on personal morality over social ministry is not Biblical. Jesus himself said that what we do to minister to our fellow humans marks the difference between the sheep and the goats. James said that “faith without deeds is dead,” and from the context, it’s clear he didn’t mean just personal morality. A failure to encourage both being good and doing good misses the mark.

To illustrate, imagine an elementary classroom. The students are learning the “silent e” rule for long vowels. Many children misunderstand and begin adding an e to every word at first. The teacher must spend time reviewing the concept until the students have learned it. Does the error mean that the teacher should throw out the e altogether, because it’s too confusing to the students? Of course not!

Yet that’s exactly what has happened to the idea of social ministry. Some people have misapplied the principle, wanting to replace faith and personal morality entirely. In response, some evangelicals have thrown out the principle entirely, wanting to emphasize personal morality as the key to or evidence of genuine faith. Sadly, it has led to inactivity on the part of Christians when it comes to caring for the world and people G-d has created.

There is a tension (in a good way) between social ministry and personal morality. How much do we emphasize one or the other? How do we carry them out practically? What role (if any) do they play in our salvation—from being necessary to being a reflection? We have to be able to talk about these things openly and in a healthy way in order for Christians to know what it means to live out our faith.

Where We Came From

Bible, Doctrine, Evolution, Science

The old Evolution vs. Creation debate has reared its ugly head again.

People who have grown up in a certain kind of Christian environment and have little background in the study of natural or biological science often have a specific viewpoint on the subject. They are often reluctant to accept the idea that this is not a major point of doctrine or that the belief that evolution is compatible with Scripture does not negate the whole of the Bible. This is not an uncommon perspective in evangelical circles.

But there is a little-known subset of the scientific community which holds fast to the same belief, that evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive and that “real” science bears this out. The proponents of this version of the argument are not generally found among people who work in the fields of anthropology, archaeology, or paleontology. In fact, they are most often found in other branches of scientific study or in mathematics. I was introduced to this worldview in an online community. Even then, it seemed like a stretch.

Anyway, I mentioned the issue to my husband. I had seen the title of a seminar and was frustrated by its inflammatory nature. My husband wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and said that a reasonable, scientifically-minded person would probably have a broader perspective than I was imagining. I told him that I did not think so. He said, “Is evolution that big a deal around here?” I assured him that it was. I grew up a couple towns over from where we currently reside, so I’m familiar with the raging debate. I told my husband that evolution is huge around here, even scarier to fundamentalists than The Gay.

When I was in high school, my biology teacher, who was not only an excellent instructor but a devoutly religious man himself (he was Jewish), had to add a caveat to his lecture on evolution. He told us that “some religions” do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, therefore he was obliged to teach it as merely a theory and not as factual information. He assured us that he was in no way attempting to negate anyone’s religious views on the matter.

At the time, I was entrenched in a particular brand of evangelical Christianity. I was on board with this apology, as I believed then that evolution could not possibly be compatible with a correct reading of Genesis 1. I was pleased that I had a teacher with the sensitivity to help the conservative students feel more comfortable having to endure this ungodly education. I, along with parents and Christian leaders, applauded the school’s decision to welcome Christian views into the classroom.

I am now horrified that I bought into such nonsense.

When I explained all this to my husband, he said that the science teachers with whom he works (he is also an educator) have said that they, too, must amend their lectures to include a nod to religious conservatives. He told me that he did not recall any of it being such a big deal when he was growing up. Living near a large city in a liberal area, even his church spent little time engaging the scientific community on the issue.

Why is is such a threat to our faith? Once I entered college, I met many Christians who were able to reconcile their deep respect for creation, their belief that God made Heaven and Earth and all therein, and their belief in the truth of evolutionary science. I was amazed that they did not see evolution and the Bible as fundamentally incompatible. Yet for them, it actually strengthened their faith and drew them toward God. How could that be?

When I finally had the courage to examine the arguments for and against evolution, I began to understand. That God could use such a complex, intricate structure to create the world we live in is a marvel. I live in awe of the beauty of it all. Appreciating the process leaves me more amazed by God’s creativity, not less.

I respect my Christian brothers and sisters who have a different view of evolution. After all, if not for them, I might not have taken the time to explore it on my own. I might have taken it for granted, and subsequently been less reverent towards the living environment and its Creator. I also know that this is not a deal breaker. Regardless of one’s point of view regarding evolution, it is not a major point of theology. It takes nothing away, on either side, from our need for Christ or His sacrifice for us.

Illogical

Doctrine, Healing

It is a cruel thing to tell people that their faith failed to heal them. The sad thing is, this sort of thing happens all the time when Scripture is twisted to fit a certain point of view rather than being read reverently with the goal in mind of listening to God’s voice.

In order to explain this, I’m going to have to return us to high school math class. I apologize for the nightmares this will induce in more fragile souls. In case you may have forgotten how logic works, allow me to remind you. You start with a basic “If…then…” statement, such as, “If it rains, the ground will be wet.” No one can doubt the veracity of that statement. Now, there are several things we can do to that statement. We can change the statement around so that it reads, “If the ground is wet, it rained.” This is the converse, and it is obviously not logically equivalent, as there are many other things that could make the ground wet besides rain (a sprinkler, dumping out a soda can, dog urine). We could also simply negate the parts, creating the inverse: “If it doesn’t rain, the ground won’t be wet.” Again, not logically consistent, for the same reason as the previous version. Finally, we can create this statement: “If the ground is not wet, it didn’t rain.” This is known as the contrapositive, and it is the logical equivalent of the original statement. As you can see, this statement is correct. Since we know rain to cause wet ground, if it’s still dry, that indicates no rain. Makes sense, right? (By the way, this works no matter which statement you use as a starting point. We could just as easily have started with both statements being negative instead of positive, and then turned them around to form the contrapositive. It’s not necessary to begin with both statements being positive.)

In my example, I’ve given statements with which it would be difficult to find fault. In most people’s experience, rain and wet ground go hand in hand. When we delve into matters of faith and spirituality, it gets a little trickier. One of the biggest lies that I’ve seen people of faith feed each other is in the realm of disease and healing. There, we might find statements which sound at first to be true, but on closer examination, reveal something far less appealing.

One such idea is that spiritual health has a deep impact on our physical well-being. No doubt there is truth to that. People who feel hopeless, helpless, and have lost faith in God and people have a harder time coping with health issues. (This is true of any faith, by the way, not limited to one particular religion.) Stress also impacts health, and spiritual beliefs may alleviate stress. But I’m talking about a specific “If…then…” statement about health: “If you are spiritually healthy, you will not get sick.”

On the surface, that statement sound at least somewhat logical. We know that the body and the spirit are connected. But if that particular logical argument sounds suspicious to you, that’s because it is. To get to the heart of the matter, we have to use the systematic logic I demonstrated above. When we take the contrapositive, that sentence reads, “If you get sick, then you will be spiritually unhealthy.”

What a cruel thing to say to someone.

The implication of the first statement is bad enough; that spiritually healthy people, those with deep, abiding faith and trust in God, will not have to suffer the way the rest of us poor schlubs do. Try telling that to the members of your congregation who are battling cancer. I wonder how they will feel when you imply that if they’d had enough faith, they would have stayed disease-free. See how it goes over if you tell a parent of a chronically ill child that the child should have had more spiritual discipline and “sinned less.” How about if you let all those people born with congenital health problems know that they can change their DNA with deep enough prayer lives. Heck, even I feel frustrated at the idea the my daughter’s asthma could have been “cured” by now, if only she had made a declaration of faith at age two!

The logic breaks down, thankfully, when we take the contrapositive. In order for a statement to be logically true, then both the original and the contrapositive must be true. If one is false, then both are false. In this case, we can be certain that failing health does not, in fact, lead to anyone being spiritually dead. Many people with serious health problems are rock-solid in their faith, experience vibrant prayer, and lead devout, godly lives. Spiritual bankruptcy is not a consequence of ill health.

Since that statement is so obviously false (not to mention seriously judgmental if one were to actually believe it to be true), then the only conclusion is that both statements are false. I take this as pretty good news for my friends with chronic ailments.

When will we stop trying to determine the quality of each others’ faith? When will we be willing to step down from the throne of judgment on any person’s spiritual life outside our own? Peddling harmful ideas about the effect of spirituality on health does not endear anyone to Christian faith.

Medical Judgmentalism

Body Image, Doctrine, Healing, Science

When we set ourselves in the place of God, judging the condition of other people’s hearts, we set ourselves up for God to knock us down.

There has always been a somewhat fringe health and wellness movement in the Church. Sometimes, that can be very good. There are excellent resources for people who want to lead healthier lives to do so within a Christian context. I do not want to blame the leaders of those excellent ministries for the shortcomings of the purveyors of snake oil that can be found in pockets of Christianity. As for the rest, their particular brand of “health and wealth” gospel takes many shapes, frequently masquerading as legitimate healing ministries.

One common thread that can be overlooked is the degree to which these so-called healing ministries attempt to blame the very people they claim to serve. Some examples, from (unfortunately) real ministries: Your weight problem stems from lack of organization in your home; your disease process has been caused by your marriage failing to live up to God’s standards for husbands and wives; your illness is the direct result of sin in your life; specific sins lead to specific health problems.

I suppose that there might be some truth in the idea that holding sin in your heart can lead to breakdown of bodily function. Certainly there is correlation (not causation) between a healthy spiritual life and positive outcomes following a hospital stay. But drawing parallels between particular sins and various diseases seems dubious at best, downright evil at worst.

There are three things wrong with this. I will cite the Biblical refutation for blaming sin for illness first. In John 9:1-3, Jesus speaks with his disciples regarding a blind man they have found:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (NIV)

In Jesus’ day, at least some people would have believed this very thing—that a person’s health was bound up in either his own or his ancestral sin. Jesus lays this one to rest by assuring them that this was not so. He also effectively demonstrates that his miracles have as much to do with instruction for us as with healing an individual. In ministries that blame the victim, both of those truths are lacking.

The second problem is judgmentalism. This morning, our church had a service along with four other local congregations. The pastors of all five (total) churches delivered a great message about judgment and freedom. Our pastor gave the definition of judgmentalism as assuming you know someone else’s motives. When someone tries to make claims of personal sin as the cause of illness, that is bald judgmentalism. If one believes we are all sinners, then how does one person’s “hidden” or “unforgiven” sin cause illness, while another’s does not? Or while another’s overt sin does not? We simply do not know what is in another person’s heart. We cannot know that fear or anger or lack of submission are causing disease, because we cannot know that those are the sins someone is enslaved to.

Third, the claim that specific sins equate specific diseases can be easily refuted by reality. A few small “studies” or annecdotal evidence are not enough to prove such a claim. This becomes even more pronounced when we add in things like healing. If the root cause of (I’m making this up) peanut allergy is really the sin of resentment, then why are people not cured when they repent? Are they not praying hard enough for forgiveness? Are they not really sorry? We are promised forgiveness whenever we confess. So if that is what is needed, then why does it appear to work for some people and not others? And why are there lots and lots of people who are resentful, but not suffering from any kind of allergy at all? It becomes clear that this is no more than an attempt to control others through pseudoscience.

We need to be wary of any ministry that claims we must clean ourselves up before approaching our Heavenly Father, even if that takes the form of purging our sins before asking for healing. We also need to be wary of anything that pretends that the Bible is a medial or a science text. It isn’t, and it was never meant to be taken that way. What a gross misuse of our holy Scripture.

Scale Theology

What Is Sin?

Where We Came From

Illogical

Medical Judgmentalism

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content