In the inaugural post of this series (The Therapeutic Gospel – Introduction), I said: “I want to delve into the therapeutic gospel accusation. I hope to persuade you that it is a misguided allegation that is destructive of true faith.” The logical place to begin this exploration is by getting some understanding of the allegation itself.
What is the “therapeutic gospel”? According to its purveyors, the average American evangelical believer follows a therapeutic Jesus who exists to solve his personal problems and to insure his happiness and well-being. It is a self-centered gospel that is focused on achieving personal peace and prosperity.
Furthermore, according to the proponents, this misguided focus is a root cause of the weakness of evangelical Christians in shaping the culture to reflect Christian values. Christians need to stop focusing on their own needs and get serious about following the true Jesus who calls on them to sacrifice for others in the pursuit of social justice.
Keep in mind that this is a critic of the faith by those of faith. This is an allegation made by some American evangelicals against other evangelicals. It is a debate within the community not an allegation from the outside.
I can’t remember where I found this quote but it captures the therapeutic gospel criticism quite succinctly as it speaks disapprovingly of a certain kind of attitude toward Jesus:
[Jesus] is the one you fit into your life and around your schedule and your plans; the one you call upon whenever you’re in trouble or need a favor, the one you add to your life so you can feel better about yourself… a kind of therapeutic Jesus.
Another recent example of the therapeutic gospel complaint can be found in Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint commentary of September 11, 2009 entitled Jesus and Me. Colson asks, “What is the Christian faith all about? One thing’s for sure—it’s about a lot more than your … personal happiness.”
Bill Hybels, the guru of the mega-church movement, has recently repented of his 30+ year effort to promote a seeker-friendly discipleship model and is replacing it with a program that encourages people to see how God is “asking us to transform the planet”. Hybels reportedly feels that his Willow Creek model promoted an anemic faith that focused on meeting one’s own needs instead of focusing on changing the world.
(Pardon this aside, but it amazes me how someone can be wildly popular for years, then admit that he has been leading people astray for decades with a misguided program, then propose a new program and continue to be wildly popular! Given the self-confessed failure of the first scheme, why should I be so quick to get on board with the new one? At any rate, thanks for letting me get that off my chest. We now return to our regularly scheduled blog post)
The sociologist Christian Smith and the theologian Albert Mohler have weighed in on the therapeutic gospel issue also. They point out that most evangelical teenagers and adults are trapped in a perspective that can be called “moral therapeutic deism”. Jesus exists to solve my personal problems and he wants me to be happy and fulfilled.
Well … okay. I know that this therapeutic gospel critic sounds spiritual. It seems lofty and high-minded. It appears to be an admirable attempt to stand against selfishness and shallowness. But remember what Paul wrote to the Colossians right at the end of chapter 2. It is possible to be rigorous and ascetic and self-denying in a way that loses any connection with God and Christ.
And this, I think, is the effect (although not the intended purpose) of those who put forward the therapeutic gospel complaint. I think they actually send people down a wrong road that nudges them away from a vital connection with the living God.
Starting with the next post, I’ll begin to provide the evidence that the therapeutic gospel diagnosis about the condition of American Evangelicalism is inaccurate and, as a result, the recommended cure is misguided. The ineffectiveness of the evangelical community to transform society is a result of a gospel message that has failed to be appropriately therapeutic at the personal level. As a result, the average believer lacks the experiential connection with God on a personal level that is necessary to engage society effectively.
I will try to convince you that I’m right and feel free to push back and tell me where I am wrong.