×

Yesterday’s lengthy post detailing all the helpful contributions to evangelism from James Choung’s True Story might leave some wondering if there is anything left to say. I commend Choung for much of what he has added to his presentation of the gospel, but I am distressed over what he has omitted in the process. Today and tomorrow, I will address some of the troubling aspects of the book.

First off, in order to make his case for the necessity of a new gospel presentation, Choung creates a caricature of contemporary strategies. He sets up a straw man evangelist who would say something like: “No lives needed to change… Believe in your mind; confess with your lips; accept the truth in your heart – and Jesus would make sure you got into heaven. Such a faith had nothing to do with life here and now but only the life to come” (33). Does such an evangelist exist?

Choung’s “Caleb” wonders if the entire Christian church has been “duped” (51). The current strategies are portrayed as virtually worthless, incomplete, and formulaic. But isn’t Choung advocating a strategy as well? For all of the book’s resistance toward formulas and strategic gospel presentations, it seems ironic to be introduced to a new strategy for presenting the gospel. I agree that the previous gospel presentations are incomplete. But Choung has not yet proven that his own presentation is necessarily better.

Many of our gospel presentations have indeed emphasized the afterlife to the exclusion of the mission life. We need to balance these two aspects. But in Choung’s presentation, the afterlife practically disappears. Hell is completely absent from the picture.

Choung anticipates this objection: “I’m not saying that afterlife isn’t important” (196). Indeed. But why never mention it? Choung avoids the talk about the afterlife because the gospel needs to be made “more relevant” (197).

“The gospel needs to sound like the good news it really is instead of a static message concerned only with the afterlife and thus divorced from everyday realities” (202).

I suppose if a plague were sweeping across our nation, killing hundreds of thousands of people and we were all faced with immediate death, the afterlife question would suddenly become relevant again. Would it then be appropriate to shift back from the emphasis on “mission life” to “afterlife” questions?

But let’s leave aside the absence of heaven and hell from Choung’s presentation. Let’s look closely at what Choung affirms about sin. For Choung, sin is not primarily an offense against a personal, holy God. The essence of sin is selfishness, not rebellion (78-99), a view that closely resembles Horace Bushnell and Friedrich Schleiermacher, forerunners of last century’s liberalism.

To be fair, Choung does not deny that sin is also against God. At one point he potently describes our sin as giving the Designer “the big middle finger” (108). But sin is not primarily against God, as is clear from Choung’s emphasis on what sin does to us.

Idolatry does come into the picture, but our sinful idolatry is ultimately about our damaging ourselves and others because of selfishness (91). Sin is not primarily against God, but against ourselves and against creation. Perhaps that is why Choung places more emphasis on ecological destructiveness of our sins against creation than he does on God’s holiness or glory (74-75, 108). Equally telling, more space is given to humanity’s sins against women than against God himself (96).

How does evil manifest itself? In judging others and oppressing people (85). Humans are given free will to choose to be a blessing or to choose evil and be a curse. Notice the subtle shift. Our sinful choices are not seen as bringing the curse of God against us, but as bringing our own curse against others.

Where does our sinful nature come into play?

“A sinful nature – like damage or disease, a general leaning in our spirit that makes it easier for us to damage all things in the planet, our relationships and our own center of being: our souls” (92).

Again – no God, no personal offense. Sin results in cursing ourselves, not in coming under the just judgment of God.

It follows, then, that the punishment for sin must also be reworked. In Choung’s presentation, punishment for sin is seen as a natural consequence stemming from the damage worked by our own selfish choices. Notice that punishment is not active judgment from a personal God. We are not suffering under God’s curse. We’ve cursed ourselves.

“Since God had designed the world so that everything in it could bless and serve everything else, following our own selfish designs gummed up the works and stalled the engine” (91).

What is God’s response to our sin? Certainly not wrath or anger. “God saw the evil on the planet and his heart broke” (119). Choung is right to see God grieving over the state of our world. Yes, God grieved at the wickedness on earth during the days of Noah. But then what did he do? He sent a flood that would purge the world of wickedness. He displayed his wrath against the world. Choung only presents part of the picture.

The main issue here is that God’s holiness is completely absent from his gospel presentation. Nowhere in the book does Choung mention the holiness of God. Therefore, our problem is that we fear God. When we are rescued, we are changed in how we view God and relate to him (in that we realize we have been foolish to be afraid of him) (210). Nothing necessarily changes in God’s relationship to us.

Because God’s holiness is absent from this book, the Old Testament Law disappears too. For all of Choung’s noble intention of capturing the entire Storyline of Scripture, he skips completely over the Mosaic Law. The Old Testament (after Genesis 11) is gone. So there is no discussion of God’s holy Law and no people of God who have been commissioned to reflect the holiness of God.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at what happens to Choung’s view of the cross once God’s holiness and Law disappear from the picture.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

LOAD MORE
Loading