< Part 1: Examining the Doctrinal Statement of No Greater Joy Ministries

Examining NGJ’s Doctrine: Concerns on Christ

We continue last week’s look at the doctrine of No Greater Joy Ministries. Since last time, continuing research and familiarizing with their materials has caused more things to come to light.

As we did last time, we will include clarifications and expansions from the books and web articles of the ministry. Last week, we looked at NGJ’s concept of humankind. We’ll now take some time to examine NGJ’s ideas about man’s relationship to God.

For those who feel there is good to be found in NGJ’s materials, we will be treating the relationship of their positive anecdotes and teachings to the theology discussed here. Our intention is to give as complete a perspective as possible within the constraints of web-based writing (maximum 2000 words per article) and our own time commitments.

In order to be thorough, this week will cover Cat’s concerns, and next week will give Dave’s doctrinal analysis.

Caveat: On Agreement and Disagreement

Commonality of Word Choice

Let us note up front that NGJ does use the language of fundamental evangelical-style belief in many cases; they do present Spurgeon, for instance, as a witnessing resource. They do use much language of “Christ alone” in speaking of salvation and the effectiveness of God’s Word. That is recognized.

However, the specific underlying context must also be examined. Commonality of language is useful only when assigned word meanings are in agreement. If, for example, the word “sin” means something different to me than it does to you, then we may say the same sentences and still totally disagree in foundational beliefs and resultant practices.

Discerning Differences

One way to determine this, as mentioned last week, is to look at the verses associated with each point in the doctrinal statement. When people compose such documents, if they are eisegetical, each doctrinal phrase forms a framework which acts as a lens through which to read the associated verses. If the statements and the verses don’t seem to say the same thing, or if the verses don’t seem to make sense next to the doctrinal statements (particularly when you read the verses in the surrounding context of their chapter and book of the Bible) reinterpretation is happening.

Christians often don’t look at the verses. They also have a reflex whereby, if the verses don’t make sense, they ignore them — assume they must not understand, or some such – and read doctrinal claims through their built-in religious filters, according to the jargonish understanding they’re accustomed to, rather than questioning the writer’s jargon.

This is how error creeps in. It’s the antithesis of discernment. When things don’t line up according to biblical teaching, warning bells should go off, rather than the spiritual reflex going to sleep. Wives, mothers, we have the right and responsibility to trust what our eyes plainly see, rather than assuming we just don’t get it. [1]

Christ’s Person

We begin here because the doctrine of Christ’s person will define the doctrine of Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of Christ’s atonement will define the doctrine of man’s salvation.

From the NGJ Faith Statement:

We believe Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin and walked this earth in human flesh, is the creator of Heaven and earth, (John 1:1-3) the eternal God, mutually, voluntarily, eternally, sustaining to God the Father that relationship of a son.

In “Living Parallel Lives,” Pearl states,

No human (apart from Jesus) has ever kept the commandments of God and maintained a character sufficient to merit him a place in God’s presence.

The Son of God came to the earth as a human being and succeeded where the first Adam failed. By his faithfulness and good works, he became the first man since Adam to live his life in a way that merited favor with God. So God gave him authority over the human race. He became the legitimate and legal representative of the entire race…

What does this mean?

Pearl writes in The Salvation of Children,

A child is born with no knowledge of good and evil, just as Adam and Eve were created with no knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:22). Even Jesus was born thus, for Isaiah prophesied that the land of Israel would “be forsaken of both her kings” before the child Jesus (Immanuel) “would know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (Isaiah 7:14-15). In Jesus’ 11th or 12th year, the last king of Israel was deposed. One must be of “full age” in order to “have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

Again, from the NGJ doctrinal statement:

When man reaches his state of moral accountability, and, by virtue of his personal transgression, becomes blameworthy, his only hope is a work of grace by God alone. Jesus Christ, in human flesh, lived a life of obedience to God, and by virtue of his humanity and Deity, was accounted a worthy substitute for sinning souls.

Non-Righteous Christ?

Let’s back up for a moment. “Even Jesus was born thus”?

In TTUAC, Pearl claims,

As the child’s reason and moral faculties develop, he gradually understands his moral responsibility and duty. At some point (as moral perception grows to a point where he can be held fully accountable), every child faces his own “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (see Deut. 1:39). So far, everyone (except Jesus) has “eaten” (personally violated his own God-given understanding of right and wrong), resulting in personal condemnation. (To Train Up a Child, p. 20, 2008 edition)

As we saw last week, NGJ doctrine divorces “moral character” from sinlessness. Pearl writes in “Insulate Your Children from Within,“

God created Adam and Eve to be righteous, but he did not create them righteous. They were created right, innocent, but with no knowledge of good or evil. Character cannot be created. It comes out of choice.

From To Train Up a Child (p. 21, 2008 ed.):

There will come a time when your child must stand alone before “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” As the purpose of God has permitted, he will inevitably partake of the forbidden fruit. Now, in the developing years, you can make a difference in how he will respond after he has “eaten.”…

Everything a child experiences, either by way of indulgence or the self-restraint you impose, is preparing him for the day when he will mature into a responsible, moral soul. Somewhere on that road of development, each child will graduate to commence his full accountability. That child then stands alone before God, “without excuse.” It becomes his day of accountability…

With this understanding, you can better appreciate what is taking place in your developing child. Just as the child Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52), so your child is going to experience a growth of understanding.

What is clear is that Pearl teaches a modified Christ, one based on his Genesis eisegesis, not on the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God’s person. Having gained context from reading NGJ’s related materials, I now see these statements in their relationship to one another:

“sustaining to God the Father that relationship of a son”

The keyword I see here is “sustaining,” which appears to be related to Christ’s moral success in NGJ doctrine.

“Character cannot be created. It comes out of choice.”
“[Christ] maintained a character sufficient to merit…succeeded where the first Adam failed”

Much emphasis is placed on Christ’s character development and maintenance. Cumulatively, Pearl teaches that Jesus

(A) had no innate moral character (was not innately righteous in His incarnation),
(B) faced a “day of accountability,”
(C) “overcame” [2] his “tree” moment, and
(D) earned the (optional [3]) right to go straight to heaven or take up the position of Saviour.

The Obedient Life of Christ

While it’s biblical to affirm that Christ could not have been the Saviour of humanity had He not lived a life of perfect obedience, it is not biblical to lay the grounds of that perfect obedience in anything other than the inherent moral righteousness and perfection of Christ’s deity. Elsewhere, [4] Pearl teaches a distinction between “sinless” as meaning “not able to sin” and the Christian “sinning no more.” However, the word “sin” itself is redefined by the NGJ version of the creation account and Pearl’s teaching on morality and accountability.

It seems muddled, but it is not.

“God came to be viewed as a benevolent Ruler exercising control over moral beings by good and wise laws designed for mutual happiness of Himself and them. Regulation in a moral government is by means of promised blessings for conformity and penalties of suffering for disobedience. While God in compassionate mercy is willing to forgive or relax His just claims against rebellious moral beings upon evidence of a willingness to cease from rebellion and return to happy submission, He cannot wisely do so without some terrible measure of enlightenment and suffering by a Being of profound dignity. This must demonstrate before all the dreadful nature and consequences of sin and provide an eternal moral force against further indulgence and heart-break to Himself as well as to them…”

-Gordon C. Olson, summarizing the teachings of Grotius on moral government theology
http://www.revivaltheology.net/8_mgt/hisatone.html

Likewise, Pearl closes Chapter 2 (pp. 21-22, 2008 ed.) of To Train Up a Child with the words:

Just as the child Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52), so your child is going to experience a growth of understanding. God’s grace reaches out, providing the Holy Scriptures which are able to make him “wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3;15). You, the parents, must equip your child to save himself from this “untoward generation” (Acts. 2:40). God already has a prototype of the finished child: It is that he might be “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). You must work with God toward the day when your children will be conformed to “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). The promise of God is still operative: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). You can begin the child’s “sanctification” long before his salvation. [emphasis in original]

Pearl’s words do not mean what they do in standard conservative evangelical jargon. More importantly, they are not being used the way the Bible uses them.

Discussion:

What are your thoughts on this?

Do you have questions or comments about sorting through materials which seem a little “off”?

Other? Please share.

Footnotes

[1] See also Complementarian Women of Intellect, a Scita > Scienda article overviewing religious and cultural gender roles, and this article at Quivering Daughters on the marginalization of women’s voices in extreme fundamentalist religious culture.

[2] In “Living Parallel Lives in the Same Space,” Pearl writes on sanctification, “Finally, as Christ is now the reigning Adam, the fully overcoming man restored to the glory intended for the human race, a man with authority, so I am the fully reigning man, bathed in eternal glory, filled with all the fullness of God, an overcomer in every way that he is an overcomer…”

[3] In the same article, Pearl writes, “After he had met and defeated the devil, after he had kept the commandments for 33 years, after he had been tempted and tested in every way that any man has ever been tested, and he maintained his integrity, he was good enough as a human being to step into heaven and sit down on the right hand of God…But, at the moment that he could have gone into heaven, he took upon himself the complete sin debt of the entire human race.”

[4] From “Mike Answers”, Feb. 2008: “All believers have the power to sin not, and it is normal for a believer to sin not—but the power to sin not is not the same as being sinless. To claim sinlessness is to claim to NOT BE ABLE to sin. A Christian is able to SIN NOT on a moment by moment basis, but he will always be ABLE to sin until he gets rid of this fleshly body.”[capital letters in original]