Peter SmytheA Different Kind of Word Preacher

One of the more difficult efforts that the modern Christian faces is extricating himself from the theological and cultural Silly Putty that has been slapped on to the Word down through time. It isn’t as easy as it looks. Some of it has been around for ages because some theological superhero stuck it on and no one has been brave enough to take it off. Some of it is fresh, but it has been so melded in that it’s hard to know what’s what.

One example of the fresh stuff comes by way of a Starbucks cup. In my camp in the Body of Christ there has been a proliferation of “mega-churches.” These churches don’t just have a building or two; they have campuses. On any given month, one might find over 100 groups to join that range anywhere from divorce recovery to overeating anonymous to photography clubs. Some of these churches not only have gyms, but also primo fitness centers where you can work out to the pastor’s latest podcast. And I haven’t been to one that doesn’t now have its own coffeeshop that serves up Starbucks right before the worship music begins. Is this phenomena, the “big-box” church, God’s handiwork or more a reflection of our Boomer culture? Inquiring minds want to know.

While church buildings (or campuses) may come or go, theological doctrines seem to have much more stickiness to them. One Silly Putty mindset that seems to have hardened onto the Word is the Reformers’ justification by faith and its myopic definition of “sinner.” While the Reformers greatly helped us all by seeing justification by faith, that’s about all they saw. They appeared to have no clear conception of the New Birth, New Creation righteousness, Satan’s place in the drama of redemption, or our place as the sons and daughters of God. That theology has left us with a very legalized view of sinners. On the one hand, natural man is the rat-fink who, whether he knows it or not, perpetually waves his fist at God, while, on the other hand, the reality of his corrupted nature is camera obscura and even denied in some quarters (see D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, “teaching that fallen humanity was filled with “satanic nature” and became a “new satanic creation” is utterly indefensible.”).

In John 8.23 and 8.44, Jesus lays out a defining truth about “sinners”:

And he was saying to them, “You are from (ek) below, I am from (ek) above; you are of (ek) this world, I am not of (ek) this world. (NASB)

You are of (ek) your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (NASB)

In these two verses, I have italicized the English “from” or “of” which the translators have used for the Greek word ek. The word “ek” conveys much more meaning in the Greek than in the English. Here are two Greek geek quotes about John’s use of ek:

Johannine expressions: ek theou (from God), ek tou diabolou (from the devil) … These examples perhaps suggest the origin of this kind of expression: ek indicates origin, and the character of a person or thing is determined by origin and upbringing. So in classical usage this type of expression (oi ek Akadamias etc.) denoted schools of thought by indicating the school whence came the manner of thinking characteristic of them. (Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (EPIB: Rome) at § 135)

Derivation - Derivation indicates that from which someone or something is descended or made. Those who are from God listen to God’s words (John 8.47); the soldiers wove a crown made from thorns (Matt. 27.29; cf. Rom. 1.3). (Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek (Broadman & Holman Publishers: Cincinnati) at 95)

When we read Jesus’s statements to Jews (God’s Covenant, but unsaved people) about the truth of their own natures, the definition of exactly what constitutes a “sinner” comes more into focus. If “sinner” is more scripturally grounded in a type of nature rather than a theologically-imputed legal status, it certainly shakes the foundation of our popular “sinner saved by grace” moniker, doesn’t it?

[Note: I have yet to hear of a “satanically-natured Christian,” but how would that be any different from a “sinner saved by grace”?]