Monday, July 30, 2007

 

The Therapuetic Gospel?!?!?

Justin Taylor points to an excellent piece by David Powilson on what Powilson calls "the Therapuetic Gospel." Referring to a scene from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (II:5:v), Powilson defines the term this way:
The inquisitor’s gospel is a therapeutic gospel. It’s structured to give people what they want, not to change what they want. It centers exclusively around the welfare of man and temporal happiness. It discards the glory of God in Christ. It forfeits the narrow, difficult road that brings deep human flourishing and eternal joy. This therapeutic gospel accepts and covers for human weaknesses, seeking to ameliorate the most obvious symptoms of distress. It makes people feel better. It takes human nature as a given, because human nature is too hard to change. It does not want the King of Heaven to come down. It does not attempt to change people into lovers of God, given the truth of who Jesus is, what he is like, what he does. [emphasis added]
Funny how a Russian author struggling with burgeoning communism is able to so completely describe the troubles with the contemprary American church. But then that should tell us something as well. The ultimate expression of sin is that very self-centeredness, and the church is far from immune from sin.

I find it increasingly difficult to encounter anywhere a congregation that does not fall into this "therapuetic gospel" to one extent or another. That fact is a reflection of our sinfulness, but what troubles my soul is that it is equally as rare to see a congregation fighting against the trend. Rather they seek to embrace it as the path to "success."

When I discuss such concerns I am told the answer is to be "the church within the church." That is to say to be the people that really "get it" in the context of the group of people that are supposed to get it. I find that response nearly repulsive.

For one thing, to learn to be satisfied with the Church, with Christ's identiifed body on earth, in such a state smacks of the embrace I seek to avoid. More, such advice always comes from those that have a vested interest in the perceived "success" of the institution. In other words, those whose financial compensation comes from the church. I wish I could learn not to be suspicious under such circumstances, but....

Is there a way to overcome this trend? My father dealt with it by withdrawal, by doing what he could do for those he could reach and "let the church rot." Oh, he went and worshipped, but that was it. I tend to operate in the same manner, but feel a constant tug that to do so is to somehow "punt." It feels like a concession to the inevitability of sin, it feels like I do not believe in Christ's ultimate victory.

But then Christ's ultimate victory came by the path of execution, the ultimate failure.

Related Tags: , , , , ,

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Feed

Blogotional

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogarama - The Blog Directory