A Dichotomy - Legal vs. Healing model

[telaquapacky]

Here are two hypothetical models for how Christians think about the gospel. I call them the Legal Model and the Healing Model.

In the Legal Model, the problem is you broke de law. No example needed. The law says “Don’t.” If you do, that’s sin.



In the Healing Model, the problem is not trusting God. An example is the original sin. God told A&E that if they ate From a certain tree in the garden, they would surely die. Satan promised Eve enlightenment and god-likeness. Eve had to decide whom she would trust, Satan or God. She chose to trust Satan, and in doing so, chose to distrust God. She had to think that somehow God did not have her's or Adam's best interests in mind when God commanded them not to eat the fruit of that tree, or that God was withholding from them something desirable.

In the Legal Model, God's reaction to our sin is anger. Because we sin every day, God is constantly angry at us. He wants to punish us, to carve out a pound of flesh to make us pay for what we have done wrong. Our sorry place in existence is as "sinners in the hands of an angry God!"

In the Healing Model, God's reaction to our sin is compassionate sorrow. He knows we are weak. He knows sin is attractive to our imperfect vision, and that Satan knows how to bait each sin with something that seems desirable to us. He also knows that sin hurts us, and it's because He loves us that He tells us not to. He also knows that though He loves us, our sins draw us away from Him and alienate us from Him. When we sin, we initially gain some gratification from the sin, then the harm results (which is what God was trying to protect us from in cautioning against the sin in His law). We blame the harmful consequence on God as if God is punishing us. We think the sin is some pleasurable or desirable thing, and God is just keeping good things from us and trying to control us against our will. This alienates us against God more and more and makes less and less trust, which leads to more and more sin. Sin then is a disease. We need healing, not punishment.

In the Legal Model, Jesus came to take the puhishment we deserved. A pound of flesh had to be carved out to satisfy God's anger, so Jesus came to suffer the suffering that was needed. Jesus is a nice guy! God? shudder! ...not so nice.

In the Healing Model, Jesus came to show what God is really like. Jesus and His Father have the same loving, kind character and personality. Jesus came to show us the Father's love and to restore our trust in the Father. He came to teach us that through loving and trusting God, sin would become unattractive to us. Jesus also wanted to teach us by example that loving and trusting God can empower us with spiritual strength to resist temptation and overcome sin.

In the Legal Model Christ died on the cross to pay the punishment that God demanded, in order to change God's mind about destroying us.

In the Healing Model, Christ had to die on the cross because this is what it took for us to realize just how bad sin really is, and to see how good God is, in that He would go to so great an extreme to die at our hand for our sin to make things right between us and Him. Christ died not to change God's mind about us, but to change our minds about Him.

Your comments?

[koan]

You start out by saying both models have "problems" and continue with the negativity of both examples. Is there a model that doesn't have problems? I'm not 'into' Christianity but there must be a more pleasant option for followers. Is there one where people are considered innately good?

[Ted]

koan :-6

Absolutely. That is what I've been trying to say while I've been here.

There are many interpretations of Jesus' death on the cross. All have some good points to them. However the one that strikes me as the greatest is "No greater love has a man then he who lays down his life for another" Jesus' purpose was not to die but to proclaim the kingdom of God on earth. He died because he was a social rebel. He was trying to change the social system that existed. As a rebel and a rabble rouser he was condemned to death as anyone else in his position would have been.

His message was one of"love, getting rid of the evil domination systems, support for the poor, impoverished and down trodden. His message was one of distributive justice in the here and now. Though he quite obviously believed in the ultimate end of a future banquet in "heaven" with all the saints and those who had gone before.

I believe that experiencing the risen Lord is adequate proof of that ultimate end.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[telaquapacky]

koan wrote: You start out by saying both models have "problems" and continue with the negativity of both examples. Is there a model that doesn't have problems? I'm not 'into' Christianity but there must be a more pleasant option for followers. Is there one where people are considered innately good?What I meant by "problems" is, each model is supposedly a solution to a problem. The Legal model supposes that the solution to the problem of sin is- punish those wrongdoers! Motivate them through fear of pain to do what is right. The Healing model supposes that the solution to the problem of sin is- heal those sick sinners. Show them what wellness is and then they'll want to take the medicine (the Holy Spirit) and get well (become happily and willingly obedient to God).

Having said that, yes, there are problems with each model- each one does have something wrong with it- though I have to tell you I vastly prefer the healing model, and I have my own measured understanding that sorts through it's shortcomings.

[Ted]

telaquapacky :-6

A good post.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

telaquapacky wrote: What I meant by "problems" is, each model is supposedly a solution to a problem. The Legal model supposes that the solution to the problem of sin is- punish those wrongdoers! Motivate them through fear of pain to do what is right. The Healing model supposes that the solution to the problem of sin is- heal those sick sinners. Show them what wellness is and then they'll want to take the medicine (the Holy Spirit) and get well (become happily and willingly obedient to God).

Having said that, yes, there are problems with each model- each one does have something wrong with it- though I have to tell you I vastly prefer the healing model, and I have my own measured understanding that sorts through it's shortcomings.


I was hoping you would have a good response such as this. It read quite negative but I felt the intention was of a positive nature.

I think the prevalant opinions of Christianity have been based on the negativity that has been such a focus in the religion. All the talk of sin and punishment and repentence...gosh, I've got enough problems already! Talk of healing and forgiveness. Those are the reasons for worship.

[telaquapacky]

Ted wrote: telaquapacky :-6

A good post.

Shalom

Ted :-6Thanks, Ted. I liked yours very much also.

[telaquapacky]

koan wrote: I think the prevalant opinions of Christianity have been based on the negativity that has been such a focus in the religion. ...Talk of healing and forgiveness. Those are the reasons for worship.Yes, Ma'am! It's 'cause the church is snookered by the legal model that there's so much negativity. It's similar to idolatry. The purpose for offering sacrifices to a idol god was to appease an angry god- to persuade a potentially cruel god who doesn't love you to deal mercifully with you.

I promised to talk about the faults with the two models. I'll start with the legal model. One beeg problem with the Legal model is... what does it say about God? It says He doesn't love us, but is just watching for an opportunity to catch us breaking the rules so He can give us a good whacking.

A beeger problem with the legal model is... what does it say about God's people? Their motivation for obedience is self-preservation and the avoidance of pain. They may even be eager to see those whom they perceive to be worse sinners than themselves to "get what they deserve."

But the beegest problem with the legal model is what it does to God's people. Forced obedience ultimately leads to rebellion. People can only live for so long in fear of punishment until they begin to hate the one who imposed the law and threatens the punishment. It sets up a religion where people don't love God and He doesn't love them. It's utterly uggerly.

I like the relational model, but the problem with it is ya gotta be careful because it can easily be confused with the Moral Influence Theory. The Moral Influence Theory is the idea that Jesus' death was unnecessary, and we could have been forgiven without it. The Moral Influence Theory says Jesus only died to have a moral influence on us to convince us that God is an alright guy after all, and if we just wised-up and got our attitude right, we would stop sinning and everything would be copacetic. The problem with that is it supposes that all we need is to be educated. It forgets that we need to be saved. The difference between the healing model and the Moral Influence Theory is that "Healing" in the healing model implies that there is more than a relationship that needs to be healed. We need to be healed. All human beings are infected with a disease called sin, which is not always uncomfortable to the patient, but is always inevitably fatal.

[telaquapacky]

Koan wrote: Is there one where people are considered innately good?Depends on what you mean. God created humans, like everything else He created- perfect. We were made in the image of God. There is something about us that God loves madly, because He has been rushing after us like a love-sick fool for six thousand years. Sounds very irreverent, but only a fool would keep chasing someone like God has been chasing us. For the most part His has been an unrequited love. And that's our problem. Our disease is our self-sufficiency in thinking we can live independently of Him, and what has become an inbred tendency for us to do what Adam and Eve did in the garden, which is to trust Satan rather than God, and to decide for ourselves what is good and evil rather than trust God's judgment on those things (That's why they called it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

[Clint]

I think I see this from a little different angle. My dad died a week ago last Wednesday. He was a good man. Being the oldest son and the “preacher” in the family I had the honor of conducting his memorial service. I was able to use examples of him and his life that I’m sure served to help others in their lives from that day forward. To my way of thinking, he was a great man of God. He loved the Lord and when I talked to him that was inevitably where the conversation would go. His faith was inspiration to me and it helped strengthen my faith.

Dad was a good example but he wasn’t perfect. His death helped many to see the Lord’s work in his life but it couldn’t be THE way to salvation for anyone. The death of Jesus Christ was unique and one of a kind. He was the ultimate Passover Lamb. He GAVE his life as a sacrificed for our freedom. No one took his life and one else could do what he did. No one else has the same standing with the Father. No one else kept the law and remained unblemished by sin, because only God is able to keep the law perfectly. His death and resurrection are definitely examples and demonstrations of how to love and ultimately live eternally, but most importantly, his death was a sacrifice. In God’s economy the sacrifice is atonement.

In his death we realize how much he loves us. In his death we see that we have eternal life and freedom. Most of all, in his death, we see a sacrifice that cannot be matched by any human. It is a sacrifice that, when accepted, gives eternal life in spite of our ability or inability to keep the law.

He is like the Passover lamb. The blood of the lamb over the door assured freedom to the Israelites. If we will put the blood of THE Passover Lamb over the door of our life, it assures freedom for eternity. He is both “legal” and “healing”. He is the law fulfilled because we now see it through the loving Spirit and spirit of the lawgiver.

My view.

[Ted]

Clint :-6

I am sorry to hear about the passing of your father. It does indeed sound like he was a man of God.

I lost my father a year ago this past January. He was not the preacher but spent most of his life playing the organ in church until he finally decided to retire. He too was a man of God and my best friend.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Clint]

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

I am sorry to hear about the passing of your father. It does indeed sound like he was a man of God.

I lost my father a year ago this past January. He was not the preacher but spent most of his life playing the organ in church until he finally decided to retire. He too was a man of God and my best friend.

Shalom

Ted :-6
Thank you Ted.

Dad wasn't a preacher either, he was one of those people in the congregation that was always there to help. Dad was also my best friend. It is going to take some adjusting, as I'm sure you know too well.

[Ted]

Clint :-6

A great deal of adjusting but with a lot of fond memories it does become easier.

Shalom

Ted :-6