While I wasn't really vocal about it at Moot, I was with you on this. JESUS makes life better. I truly believe that.

No, He won't give you a Cadillac (necessarily).

Yes, He will give you abundant life and joy because all of that stuff comes with Him.

As C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: "Look for yourself and you will find, in the long run, only hatred, rage, ruin, despair and decay, but look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in." (That was my paraphrase. I think it's pretty close.)

If you and I agree on that, we probably agree on the "better" stuff, and are just having some semantic crossing of wires. (Or perhaps we are just emphasizing different aspects of the same concept we both agree with in totality.)

Yes, of course we agree!

I think the problem is (and I certainly felt this at Moot) that whenever I used the term "better", several of you saw an entire U-Haul full of other baggage coming up behind that word. I was practically waiting for someone to say "So, been reading Your Best Life Now Bill?" :-)

For instance, I don't think I've ever insinuated any kind of works-based aspect to sanctification(I certainly hope I haven't!). My fear has been that - to avoid the appearance of works-basedness, the idea of any kind of continuing growth toward our destiny (sinlessness) should be played down.

I am not sure why this subject has so captivated me. But it has. Seriously - there are some very good blogs I quit reading because of what they said about sanctification (in so many words, that it doesn't exist - and I'm pretty sure they don't mean that, but they have been written to suggest that, no doubt in reaction to abuses on the other side).

I've been examining myself a lot on this. I don't want to be wrong about this. But if sanctification isn't true, then the legs of my hope are kicked out from under me.

I remember being fine when you were defining "better" as "life" (because it's better than death, obviously) but I also remember I had issues when you expounded at some points, and it sounded like you were defining better in terms of "if we do x, than God will give us y" -- the big example we discussed was that by doing x, y, or z, a Christian would have a "better" marriage -- and that's what I was objecting to. (Of course, it depends on what "better marriage" means too.)

But, again, I don't want to rehash that, b/c I agree with your definitions of "better" in the limited scope of your blog post. :-)

Just curious... what's the problem with practical, biblical helps for a better, more Christ-exalting marriage that will bring both parties joy? What's the problem with practical, biblical helps that will lead to more growth in study, or prayer, or meditation, or any number of practices?

I'm sure this is just a semantical discussion, heh.

To me, the practical helps from scripture are for the purpose of spiritual growth in light of the gospel. Now, I understand they can be taken out of context and become a legalism that is an offense to the gospel, and yes we can sometimes easily forget the real reason we do them (because of Christ and what He has done), but I think those practical helps are so often given a bad rap.

I did happen to see the post in question, and for me the Jesus/Better is a false dichotomy. I understand the 'better' to be taken as practical, Christ-exalting biblical helps, so to me that is a false dichotomy of Jesus vs. Practical Biblical Exegesis which is kind of confusing. If God has practical helps in scripture for truly improving a marriage, friendship, vocation, that he has designed, why would we assume they can't be God's methods of teaching us his ways and his desires and his attributes, therefore growing in an understanding of Him and sanctifying his bride?

Interesting stuff to think about, this all is.

I'm still struggling, then.

For instance, I agree with this: "But that is not usually how the modern church defines "better" when it starts saying that These Biblical Practices Will Make Your _______ Better, which is what I'm generally objecting to -- a functional legalism that makes God a genie and the Bible a potions book, a non-charismatic prosperity gospel."

But I don't think that just because of that abuse, we should say, flatly "the Bible doesn't 'work'" - which I've seen said flatly by people who should know better.

The Bible works like all get-out. It's full of wisdom. How could we not become more wise by reading it and following it?

OF COURSE it doesn't boil down to a formulaic, "works every time" genie in a bottle push-button, "your satisfaction guaranteed" better-life generator. Now, I know some people are teaching that, but that's 1,000 miles away from what I'm saying.

The aforementioned example of forgiveness, for instance. I've counseled people many times to forgive, even if the person they forgive doesn't accept the reconciliation. Because forgiveness is better (way better) than bitterness. And because, sometimes, true reconciliation comes from that. And that's one of the most beautiful things in the world to behold.

And because forgiving someone else is commanded of us, and is a beautiful near-and-small picture of the Gospel, and because we've been forgiven much.

Because forgiveness pleases God, and that's always better than not pleasing him.

Because forgiveness is wisdom in action.

"The Bible doesn't 'work'" is a lie.

I think what Jared is saying (and I don't remember him ever saying or even implying that the Bible "doesn't work") is that applying Biblical principles to a bad situation is not guaranteed to "fix" the situation. That's not to say it never happens, but telling a person that if they do this and this, then their marriage will work or their in-laws will suddenly love them is wrong. Many times, the only thing that changes is the person who is actively trying to change. Whether that's "better" is up for semantical debate, but the Bible, like God, is not some great mechanic's kit. Sometimes a bad engine is a bad engine, and the only thing that's changed is the passenger.

And again, I think applying anything Biblical in hopes that it will fix external situations misses the point. Jesus never said, "do this and your _____ will become better," but He did give us His spirit, and He made sanctification possible. When I do anything, if I have not done it for His sake, I have missed the point.

Also: I don't know how anything I've said (from Moot until this blog thread) could be construed as my saying we don't obey God and live according to Scriptural principles. It kinda concerns me that anything I've said could be taken that way.

For what it's worth, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm asking questions, but don't read into them a disagreement. I'm just trying to understand. Nothing you said could be taken to mean what you may think I think you mean (woah - does that make sense? :-).


I feel the same way, though. Did I ever say anything about following the Bible always resulting in a (worldly speaking) good outcome? I never did, but I've had to respond to that particular charge a number of times in the conversation and in this thread.

If it makes you feel better, you've succeeded, I think, in changing my thinking somewhat on this subject. I'm not sure how far down the line I've gotten, but the only reason I post things like this is because I'm troubled internally and need some clarification. That's a good thing.

I'm doing what I often do when trying to unravel something - I'm testing the limits of what's been said to see if I understand. It's the programmer in me.

As usual, I'm just muddying the waters and probably causing more concern and/or personal hurt than this silly topic requires. I never should have posted this.

I relate more to what Jared is saying. Without getting into a dissertation, here are some of my observations and concerns:

I think the use of terms like "better" and "abundant life" confuse the issue because of definitional problems. Some of that is evident in the comments above.

The struggler, the sufferer, the poor, diseased, oppressed, chronically hurting, can testify that it is better" to belong to Jesus than to not belong to Jesus, and can find abundamce or "blessed-ness" to borrow from the Sermon on the Mount, even in the midst of awful circumstances. But that doesn't necessarily mean his circumstances will improve, and improved circumstances is what is usually implied or understood, when middle and upper middle class western Christians use terms like "abundant life" and "life is better with Jesus."

A Wheaton professor-mentor of mine once said to me something like: "don't make the mistake of thinking Christianity is the only religion that can help someone get their life cleaned up, improve their circumstances and relationships." For instance, look at Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, or read The Autobiography of Malcolm X to see what conversion to Islam did in the life of Malcolm X.

But yes, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and walking in relationship with God through Jesus Christ should and does make a real, tangible difference in a person's life. Both immediately, and progressively over time. And that difference is or should be significant, and important, and leave the person saying "I wouldn't want to go back to where I was without Jesus - this IS better."

I'm in this with you guys too, always learning. I pray God cotinues to teach me and sanctify me.

I'll be around here poking around more often...

-CQ

Thanks nhe.

I want to reiterate, one more time, that I agree with Jared but am trying to calibrate that into my own life. This post was never (ever) directed at Jared, but since he and I had discussed this subject before, etc, he naturally got sucked into the conversation again. :-)

You wrote: "Also, I would reject the notion (as I'm guessing we all would) that having hope in a "better" life in "this" life is any kind of motivation to do what I know is right."

You are, of course, correct. That being said (you notice, I always have a "that being said" part . . .) I think most of us approach decisions with the question "what's right?" but also with the question "what's wise?" At least I do. I am not spiritually attuned enough to never let the affect of my decisions on my own well-being not to weigh in. My hope and prayer is that if "what's wise" doesn't line up with "what's right", I choose "what's right". My experience is that, most of the time, "what's right" lines up with "what's wise".

Let's take the aforementioned topic of forgiveness. Imagine a scenario: a Christian and a non-believer have a blow-up. The Christian is feeling convicted regarding this - they were hurt by the non-C, but also know that they themselves hurt the non-C.

The Bible clearly commands us to forgive. We can't control what the other person will do, but we ourselves know that to forgive is to do what's right. But forgiveness is also wise, because it is an unburdening of the soul. It is taking part in the lighter yoke, the freedom, that living the Kingdom life provides.

Now, I don't know the probability of the relationship being reconciled if the Christian approaches the non-Christian with forgiveness. But I do know that the probability is infinitely higher (and that's no exaggeration, that's math) than the precisely 0% chance of reconciliation if neither party decides to forgive.

Of course (of course, of course, 1,000,000 times of course) this doesn't mean that ever decision we make is this cut and dried. Many, perhaps most of the decisions we make as Christians that line up with "what's right" will diminish our wealth, our sense of entitlement, perhaps even our lifespans. However, I still believe that following Biblical commands and exhortations regarding forgiveness, prayer, giving, self-sacrifice, non-retaliation, submission, parenthood, etc. lead to wisdom, which can often lead to joy and reconciliation and purpose and wholeness and a fruitful, useful life submitted to the Lord. Which is a very good thing.

nhe,

Well said. This life is a small subset (a vapor) of the larger glory of God and His Kingdom. Most definitely. I think that's the right focus to have, though I often struggle to have that focus in correct balance.

Along these lines I like this quote from C.S. Lewis:

If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all. (from God in the Dock.)

Bill I am absolutley on you side on this one. I think Lewis' quote was really only addressing the absolute truth of Christianity.