Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 18-B)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

Does an Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace? (continued)

I discussed the first part of this chapter in the last post (Part 18-A). The major reason this question is asked inside the church as well as outside the church is that after 9/11 “we fear that the misuse of one religion or ideology will lead to violence, and that the violence of one jeopardizes the peace and unity of all.” Therefore, some feel, “If Jesus can be demoted from the sole savior of the world to one savior among others, that is one less match to ignite the powder keg.” (page 185)

The question, “Does an exclusive savior threaten world peace?”, is vital to ask and answer if we are to avoid the extremes of either a theocracy or a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator gospel of a Jesus who could never be a threat to anyone. And, let’s face it, the message of the Gospel can be divisive. Even Jesus said it could be divisive (see Luke 12:51 where Jesus predicted division over Him even within families). We’ve seen instances even today of someone being ostracized from his or her own family, or even killed in some societies, because they became a Christian.

Any religion that claims exclusivity perceives a threat when another exclusive religion is preached. Sometimes adherents react violently. In this regard, presenting Jesus as the Savior of the world does threaten world peace. So the way Jesus is presented is important.

Having shown the perceived danger which keeps many Christians from presenting Jesus as an exclusive savior, Edwards shows in the last half of chapter 10 how that danger is minimized by focusing on grace, Jesus as redeemer of all, and how the Gospel is God’s message of peace for all.

God’s grace is not the privilege of a few, but the gift God offers to all peoples. “The entire New Testament declares and repeats that in the particularity of Jesus, Israel reduced to one, that salvation has been accomplished for and is now offered to all creation.”

The term “offered” comes up again and again. Some Christians claim that grace and salvation are given to all with no response required. For them the question of free will is answered by saying that somehow in the end God will save everyone whether they accept Christ now or not. Edwards says the gift is offered to all, but that the gift must be received. God does not force it on anyone (and, of course, we should not use force in evangelistic efforts either). Thus the threat to peace is lessened.

Six pages are devoted to the New Testament concept of God offering salvation to everyone. Special care is taken in the New Testament to show that not only Jews could receive salvation through Jesus. “The Cornelius episode [in Acts 10 and 11] entered the bloodstream of the early church, and has never left it. It illuminated something that in the long history of Israel had lain in the shadows: the offer of salvation to all peoples.”

Walls were broken down for the Church to receive all who would come, not only from other nations, but “all people—“Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female—may be baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:12-18; Colossians 3:11).”

We should notice also that God’s redemption through Jesus is intended for all creation, including “the elemental spirits of the universe” (Colossians 2:20). That, of course, is a mystery we won’t solve, but it is important to know that Jesus is Lord of all.

In the section “Jesus the Peacemaker of God” Edwards re-emphasizes that there is no coercion behind the redemption of all. The focus is on Jesus breaking down the walls that divide so there is now nothing that artificially separates people. By breaking down the walls that divide, Jesus created the peace.

It’s important to know, however that:

• the “peace” Jesus created is not what the world thinks peace is (the absence of conflict or a state of tolerance)
• this peace is created by Jesus; it is not something humans make
• this peace is not a personal mental state or attitude—it’s corporate rather than individual
• peace refers to the reconciliation between God and His creation, and
• it refers to the corporate peace Jesus creates within His Body

In one long sentence Edwards summarizes all of this: “The peace that attends the proclamation of the gospel is thus the announcement of a condition produced and delivered by God, not by human effort; it is a condition effected by the work of Jesus and declared in his name; and finally, it is communal rather than private or primarily emotional, affecting in material ways the relations of Christians with the world.” (page 200)

Since the point cannot be made too often, Edwards repeats the concept (on page 202): “The peace announced in the gospel is not achieved by an imposition of power on others but by the self-sacrifice of Jesus…The Gospel does not destabilize and threaten the world. It reconciles the world.”

In spite of this truth, we are often reluctant to talk about the gospel, the self-sacrifice of Jesus, and the salvation He offers to the world. Because we personally now encounter people from other religions, we would like to focus on the Great Commandment (to love God and each other) and forget about the Great Commission (to go and make disciples of all peoples). We don’t want to disturb the peace. If only all paths did lead to the same place, all would be well. So in the next post we will move on to the next chapter, “How should Christians think about other religions”.

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 18A)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.


Does An Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace?

When I first saw that title to the 10th chapter of Edwards’ book I thought it a strange question. I hadn’t seen the Gospel (the good news that God through His Son Jesus Christ was reconciling the world unto Himself) as something divisive. I should have remembered how violently some people reacted to Jesus and to the early church as it spread into various countries.

I should also have remembered how certain political leaders (especially totalitarian ones) felt threatened by a religion that promotes freedom. I also should have noticed how threatened some feel within the church today by those who adhere very strongly to their beliefs (the once positive term “fundamentalist” has been made into a pejorative by some).

Of course we have seen what can happen when rigid and self-righteous Christians use the power of the state to impose their religion on others. We are wise to be wary of any state-sponsored religion (or ideology) which can easily become a coercive force of conversion. The Inquisition is a stain on the Church, and, as a Baptist, I’m very aware of the role Baptists played in the development of the Bill of Rights for our Constitution. Baptist preachers were often persecuted by state-sponsored religions in the colonies, so they were highly involved in religious-freedom issues.

Such coercion is not limited to the Church, though. Millions have been slaughtered by an attempt to instill communism in different countries. Jihadist Muslims who are driven to impose Sharia law in every country are a prime example today of the danger of the merger of fanatical religious belief with the power of political and military force.

The world is getting smaller, so diverse people with strongly held beliefs are living closer together. As Edwards notes, “How can the increasing interdependence of the world and the persistence of religious truth claims be harmonized? Universal religious claims, especially as they appear in the West, are not obviously compatible with the many and diverse cultures, nations, and social systems of the world.” (page 183)

Edwards identifies one cause of the very strong desire of many today to question the doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ and to promote “soteriological pluralism” (i.e. the idea that there many ways to salvation). That cause is that after 9/11 “we fear that the misuse of one religion or ideology will lead to violence, and that the violence of one jeopardizes the peace and unity of all.” Therefore, some feel, “If Jesus can be demoted from the sole savior of the world to one savior among others, that is one less match to ignite the powder keg.” (page 185)

After reading the first half of the 10th chapter, I saw more clearly the reason for the title to that chapter. The question, “Does an exclusive savior threaten world peace?”, is vital to ask and answer if we are to avoid the extremes of either a theocracy or a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator gospel of a Jesus who could never be a threat to anyone. I don’t see much danger of a Christian theocracy in America. There are too many interest groups who will resist (and sue to stop) such attempts. I do see the opposite danger (as does Edwards) of those within the church who act as if all will be well if we just get along with others, promote tolerance, and accept each other’s diverse beliefs as all being equally valid (in other words, not preach Jesus as the unique revelation of God and God’s only provision for salvation).

Edwards devotes the last half of the chapter to grace, Jesus as redeemer of all, and how the Gospel is God’s message of peace for all. I’ll finish this chapter in the next post.

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 17)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.


Choosing One Way Instead Of Many

“There are many paths to God, and all of them are equally valid.” “I don’t think that just Christians will be saved.” Both of these statements reflect a philosophy that dominates 21st Century American culture. It’s got a name most people have never heard of; and those who have heard of it have trouble defining it. Yet everyone recognizes the concepts inherent in this philosophy, and we are confronted by them every day.

In Chapter 9 of “Is Jesus The Only Savior?” Edwards takes on this cultural bias, which goes by the name “Postmodernism”, and contrasts it with the gospel of Jesus. It’s a fairly long and complex chapter which I will attempt to cover briefly and simply (and hopefully not simplistically).

Postmodernism obviously refers to something that came after “modernism”. When we think about “modernism” in terms of Rationalism or the Enlightenment, with their emphases on logical or scientific answers to every question, we get a clue to its meaning. Postmodernism, which is something of a rebellion against the certainty of previous eras, says there are no answers, only opinions; no facts, only interpretations; no standards of right and wrong, only what’s right for me and what’s right for you; no objective Truth, only individual truths; no universal values, only moral and cultural relativism.

It’s easy to see, then, why the Gospel sounds harsh and arrogant to many, and why the two statements at the beginning of this post are heard today, even in Christian churches. This is why some have changed the unique Gospel message to one gospel among many. It’s seen clearly in this quotation from Marcus Borg in “Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time” (on page 37):

“Imaging Jesus as a particular instance of a type of religious personality known cross-culturally undermines a widespread Christian belief that Jesus is unique, which most commonly is linked to the notion that Christianity is exclusively true and that Jesus is ‘the only way’. The image I have sketched [of Jesus as a “spirit person” who knew God but was not God] views Jesus differently: rather than being the exclusive revelation of God, he is one of many mediators of the sacred.”

For Postmodernism, not only is Jesus not the only savior, there is a question of whether a savior is needed at all. If there are no universal values, then whatever is acceptable within a particular society is OK, even if it would not be acceptable within another society. If values and morals are relative to various cultures, it’s not a big leap to say that there is no such thing as sin which needs to be forgiven by some unseen “God”. In addition, it is totally unacceptable to say that God did something unique in sending Jesus to provide forgiveness and salvation through his vicarious sacrifice.

Yet that is our message: “The story of the Bible is the story of an unfolding drama in which God intervened from time to time by sending special actors on stage” and the focal point of this drama was that “in Jesus, the Son of God, God spoke the last word” (Edwards, page 174 & 175).

The title of Chapter 9, “The Gospel and Postmodernism” shows the conflict. The two concepts are polar opposites. The Gospel claims that Jesus is the unique revelation of God and the redeemer sent by God. Postmodernism claims that there can be no one Truth for all and that there can be many paths to many different “gods”. In other words, it would say that Jesus may be the savior for us, but we can’t claim Jesus as the savior for the world.

In contrast, when we preach the Gospel as it is presented in the Scriptures, we have to say “ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NIV)
So, today there is the Gospel of Christ and the “gospel” of Postmodernism, and the two claims are irreconcilable. One who says “all paths to God are equally valid” is preaching Postmodernism, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Both “gospels” cannot be “equally valid”? Galatians 1:6,7 applies today just as it did when first written: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.”

The perversion of the Gospel infiltrating the churches in Galatia that Paul was concerned about was the notion that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was of no use by itself to those who were gentiles. They wouldn’t be real Christians unless they also submitted to the Old Testament law and became a Jew.

The perversion of the Gospel infiltrating churches today is that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in of no use to us because we cannot be saved through the sacrificial death of someone else, especially someone who was in reality not God, but just a “spirit person” who knew God in a more profound way than others. We won’t be real Christians, they say, except by patterning our lives after Jesus who was our model.

These are, in the end, the same perversion—salvation by works instead of by grace through faith in the saving work of Jesus. Chapter 9 is a difficult chapter to read because for most of us it introduces a confusing philosophy; but it needs to be read in its entirety. The Letter to the Galatians is also a difficult book to read because it confronts some false prophets who weren’t named directly in the book (the Judaizers—those who thought all Christians should also be Jews). It also needs to be read in its entirety.

If you do read all of Galatians, you’ll see that it sounds incredibly harsh, especially Galatians 1:8-9. It probably sounded harsh in Paul’s day, too. The term “Postmodernism” wasn’t around then, but an attempt to change the Gospel to something that negated the cross was. In Galatians 6:12 Paul said, “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised [i.e., to become a Jew]. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ “

As today, the Gospel first went out into a multi-cultural society where there were many competing religions and philosophies, including the one that tried to re-enslave Christians to a religion of works. It was important then to preach the Gospel as it had been received; and it is just as important today.

Today it’s possible to buy “knock-off” goods that appear to be the real thing. Do you want a “Rolex” watch, “Levis” jeans, or “Ping” golf clubs? No need to pay full price. You can get a pirated version that looks like the real thing for a fraction of the price. I heard a story this week of someone who bought a whole set of “Ping” golf clubs including the bag in China for less than $150. One real Ping club would cost that much in the U.S. Some people take the risk of less-than-perfect goods just to fit in with a certain crowd. So what if the watch doesn’t function quite like a Rolex, or the golf clubs aren’t exactly the same as the real Ping clubs. It doesn’t hurt anyone, does it?

It’s also possible to accept a “knock-off” version of the message of salvation. But do we want to bet our destiny on it? The real Gospel says Jesus is the only Savior. The “knock-off” version says Jesus may be a good model for us to follow, but each person can choose the model that fits them best in their own culture. One path or many? A Savior or just a model? Our choice.

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16C)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

The Results of Amazing Grace

“The costly counterpart to sin is divine grace.” So begins the section entitled "Three Effects of God's Grace in Christ" in chapter eight of Edwards’ book. It reminds us of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s famous book, “The Cost of Discipleship” in which he coined the phrase “cheap grace”, as in these two quotes:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God.

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. (See here for references.)

A gift that has no cost behind it has no heart in it. Lovers know this intuitively. That’s why people in love sacrifice their own desires to give something to the one they love. O. Henry’s short story “The Gift of the Magi” captures that truth with a poignant twist.

To speak of God’s grace without the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and without asking us to give up our sinful ways, is to treat the sacrificial gift from God as if it were nothing. God’s gift was costly. And to give it the respect it is due will also cost us something—our freedom to do whatever we want with our lives.

“And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” And again, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (I Cor. 5:15 & 21) We are saved by the gift of God through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. Then we can do the good works God has for us to do in His power. “ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph. 2:8-10)

Edwards identifies three things that God’s grace through Christ does for us: (1) it gives us a standing where we are justified before God; (2) it enables us to experience God with the new life He gives us and continues to mature in us; and (3) it creates a new destiny of eternal life with God (see Rom. 6:23).

This gift of eternal life is not just a future existence “in heaven”. It starts the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior. It continues throughout life on earth as we obey Him as our Lord and then beyond the grave as we rise with Him with not only new life but a new kind of body (see I Cor. 15:51-54). As Edwards says on page 160, “…Jesus’ resurrection experience is the destiny of all believers. The life Jesus now lives is the life that believers, by his grace, will live—free from death, living eternally with God.”

The chapter is neatly summed up in two sentences on page 162. “We have talked at length about sin in this chapter, because our culture is in denial about sin, despite the fact that sin, as G.K. Chesterton noted, is the only empirically provable doctrine of the Christian faith. The gospel insists on the severity of sin not to produce gloom and dread, but to establish the certainty of joy.”

Sin is serious business, and the wages it pays are serious. “Work hard for sin your whole life and your pension is death. But God's gift is real life, eternal life, delivered by Jesus, our Master. (Rom. 6:23 The Message). That’s why the gift of God’s grace was costly. Serious business demands a serious investment. Thanks be to God for providing what we need to obtain new life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16B)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado.  We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior”  [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)].  We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

AMAZING GRACE

One of our most famous and popular hymns is “Amazing Grace”, written by John Newton.  It is often played at funerals, although it is not primarily a funeral song. It is a song about the wonder of God’s grace in saving a sinner from his deserved fate and delivering him from the debilitating effects of sin.  It’s first verse is:

     Amazing grace!  How sweet the sound
     That saved a wretch like me!
     I once was lost, but now am found;
     Was blind, but now I see.

John Newton, a former slave trader, probably wrote the hymn sometime between 1760 & 1770 AD, 15 years or so after he left his career as captain of a slave ship, and some 20 years after his conversion to Christianity.  In calling himself a “wretch”, Newton was well aware of his own sin and his need to be saved from it.  He knew he needed a savior, for being lost, he could not find his own way out of the mess of his life.

Grace is undeserved favor, a gift.  One of the best descriptions I’ve heard of grace is the acrostic:

     God’s
     Riches
     At
     Christ’s
     Expense

I like this acrostic for its clarity: anything I receive from God is not because of my having earned it, it is a gift from God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It is not a “cheap” gift.  It cost Jesus his life.  Jesus died for my sins.  His death paid the penalty for sin which had separated me from God.

When I worked with college students from other countries who were studying here, this was the major barrier that kept them from understanding, much less accepting, the gospel.  They considered it unjust that one person could pay for another person’s sins.  It is each person’s responsibility to pay his or her own debts.  Justice demands that; and they would not be convinced that God would require any less.  If anyone is to be “saved”, they must do it themselves.

I don’t think they had a problem with the idea of sin—they saw it in themselves and in others.  They had a problem with the Christian remedy for sin.  For them, they only way to deal with sin was to do something to offset it.  The remedy for them is on works, not grace.

The latter part of Edwards’ 8th chapter concerns the concept of grace, which is provided by the sacrifice of Jesus.  Edwards says that if Jesus ”were only the revealer (of God) he would be a source of knowledge and enlightenment about God, but not necessarily a source of power from God.” … “Jesus brings what we cannot find within creation, what we cannot offer ourselves. He brings grace—grace that accepts, forgives, and transforms.”

Referring to a number of New Testament passages, Edwards makes the point that Jesus died “on behalf of others”, “for us”, as our “paschal lamb” and “sacrifice”.  In summary, Edwards says, “The idea that Jesus’ life, ministry, and death provided a vicarious covering ‘on behalf of others’ is the dominant template for the New Testament understanding of Jesus.”

In this, Edwards presents the classic, orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.  Jesus is not just our model, teacher, mentor, or example.  Jesus is our Savior.

In the next post we’ll look at the final section of chapter 8 where Edwards talks about “three effects of God’s grace in Christ.”

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16 A)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.


Sin, A Savior, and Moral Relativism

Chapter 8 is entitled, “Is a Savior from Sin Meaningful In a Day of Moral Relativism?” To understand the question that leads this chapter, we first have to grasp the effect of moral relativism on the culture and the church. Edwards takes some time to explain what moral relativism is and how is has made inroads into the church.

Edwards is not the only Christian writer to treat the subject of moral relativism. In doing a quick search on Amazon.com, I found over 40 books on the subject. And looking on Google for “moral relativism” over 1.1 million sites were found. The first site on the list was on wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). It’s a good place to go for a quick introduction to the concept.

In April, 2005, one of the most famous statements on the subject was made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who was quickly thereafter elected Pope Benedict XVI). The entire text of his sermon is at Vatican Radio and many other sites. Here is the paragraph with the memorable phrase “dictatorship of relativism”:

"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."

That is a great statement about relativism from the current Pope: (that “which does not recognize anything as for certain”). Edwards also has a very readable style, but unfortunately it is not easy in this chapter to find a simple definition of moral relativism. He seems to equate it with pluralism, but then does not provide a clear definition of pluralism either. One quote comes close to a definition: “In ideological pluralism, objective virtues are replaced by subjective opinions. When virtues are replaced by subjective judgments, then statements about virtue become like color preferences. One opinion of right or wrong, virtue or vice, beauty or ugliness is as valid as another.” (page 144)

Here is the crux of the matter for the church. If someone says there is no objective standard for morality (no right nor wrong, only different opinions), then for them there is no such thing as “sin”. If there is no sin but only mistakes or improprieties, then there is no need for a savior. And if there is no need for a savior, there is no salvation. “If sin and hell are merely metaphors, perhaps God, heaven, and salvation are metaphors too.” (p148)

Ironically, a favorite Bible verse of the moral relativist (who otherwise doesn’t accept the Bible as an objective moral authority) is, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matt. 7:1 KJV) It seems OK (or PC) to condemn someone for judging another (even though that in itself is judging another) because it is not OK to make someone feel bad about their sin. So, the topic of sin is avoided or changed into something more palatable.

If we get to the point in the church were we look at sin, salvation, heaven, hell, a Savior, and even God as metaphors, rather than reality, our message of Jesus Christ suddenly becomes meaningless and irrelevant. The Christian message (the gospel) is based on the historical events that changed the world—the incarnation of God in Christ, the death of Jesus Christ for the vicarious atonement of our sins, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

If none of those events were real and true, the message of the church for the past 2000 years has been a lie. And attempts to proclaim the “heart of the message” by claiming the events are true as metaphors, leaves us with a Jesus who is only a model or an example to follow. Personally, I need a savior, not a model.

More in the next post about how a savior from sin is meaningful in a day of moral relativism.