This is probably the most balanced essay out of the ones I have been reading because a large portion of the critique is legitimate. Many churches absolutely have reduced discipleship into behavioral conformity, personal image management, and endless policing of secondary issues while neglecting greed, exploitation, pride, abuse of power, injustice, and care for the vulnerable. Jesus and the prophets really do hammer those sins relentlessly, and modern Western Christianity often does not. The essay is also correct that holiness movements sometimes drifted into treating cultural taboos as though they were the center of the gospel itself. Paul explicitly warns against reducing spirituality to “do not taste, do not touch, do not handle” frameworks detached from genuine transformation. Where I think the piece overcorrects is in creating too sharp a divide between “personal sin” and “structural sin,” as though concern about private morality is mostly a Western distortion while Jesus primarily cared about systems and power structures. The New Testament consistently addresses both. Yes, Jesus speaks against greed and oppression but He also speaks against lust, divorce, hypocrisy, sexual immorality, repentance, forgiveness, envy, hatred, and inward corruption. Paul repeatedly addresses intensely personal moral behavior right alongside economic exploitation and social injustice. The danger is that modern progressive Christianity sometimes flips the imbalance rather than correcting it. Older churches could reduce Christianity into private morality while ignoring injustice. Newer liberation-oriented frameworks can reduce Christianity into social liberation while treating personal holiness, repentance, and moral discipline as secondary or even suspicious. And honestly, I think the strongest line in the entire essay is accidental. “The gospel door is wide open and the hallway inside is very narrow.” That perfectly describes what happens whenever human beings turn grace into tribal conformity systems. But again, that is not uniquely a failure of conservative Christianity. Progressive religious movements can become just as conformity-driven, status-conscious, and morally performative in their own ways. The healthiest corrective is probably not choosing between personal transformation and justice for the vulnerable. The biblical vision consistently holds both together. The prophets condemned exploitation and personal corruption. Jesus confronted oppressive structures and called individuals to repentance. The New Testament never really separates inward transformation from outward love of neighbor the way modern ideological camps often do.
I think this gets some things right, but it also overstates its case.
The strongest part is the criticism of churches that turned holiness into a list of personal rules. There are absolutely traditions that spent more time worrying about smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, and dress codes than they did about greed, exploitation, corruption, or indifference to the poor. The prophets would have had a thing or two to say about that.
I also think the author is right that some Christians have so focused on individual sin that they’ve largely ignored the social dimension of sin. Scripture is full of warnings about abusing power, exploiting workers, neglecting the poor, and perverting justice. That’s not some modern invention. It’s all over the Old Testament and it doesn’t disappear when you get to Jesus.
Where I think the author goes too far is when he starts acting like personal sin is mostly a Western Christian invention or that the New Testament is primarily concerned with systems and structures rather than individuals. It isn’t.
Jesus talks about greed, lust, pride, hypocrisy, repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. Paul talks about the sins of the heart as much as the sins of society. The New Testament doesn’t treat sin simply as harm done to other people. It also treats sin as a broken relationship with God.
That’s why I don’t think the answer is to replace one emphasis with another. Some churches have overemphasized personal piety. Some versions of liberation theology overemphasize social and political liberation. Both are reacting to a real problem. Neither gives the whole picture.
The Bible seems less interested in choosing between personal holiness and justice for the vulnerable than we are. It insists on both. The same prophets who condemned exploitation also called people to repentance. Jesus cared about the poor, but He also told people to go and sin no more.
So I don’t disagree that many churches got the balance wrong. I just don’t think liberation theology discovered something everybody else missed. I think it recovered one part of the biblical picture that some Christians neglected. The mistake is treating that recovered piece as the whole picture.
People coming from the denominational background you did miss out on the broader and deeper teachings afforded in the Westminster standards, especially regarding personal morality. This can lead to all kinds of confusion and misprioritization among the body of Christ, as you've observed.
Here is an AI-generated summary of its teachings on the 10 Commandments specifically:
The Westminster Larger Catechism treats each commandment as a positive guide to love God and neighbor, not merely a list of external prohibitions. It emphasizes that God’s law addresses the heart, so each commandment includes both required duties and forbidden sins in thought, word, and deed. The first four commandments focus chiefly on duties toward God, while the last six focus chiefly on duties toward other people. The catechism repeatedly shows that true obedience is inward and outward, affecting motives, desires, speech, actions, and relationships. [westminsterstandards](https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
In the first commandment, we are required to know, acknowledge, and trust the true God alone, to worship and glorify him, and to have him as our God above all rivals. It forbids atheism, idolatry, superstition, distrust, fear of creatures, and giving to anything else the honor that belongs to God. The second commandment requires receiving, observing, and keeping pure all worship that God has appointed, while forbidding making or using images in worship, or worshiping God in any way not instituted by him. The third commandment requires holy and reverent use of God’s names, titles, attributes, works, and ordinances, and it forbids profaning them in speech, thoughtlessness, false swearing, and irreverent use of sacred things. [chapellibrary](https://www.chapellibrary.org/api/books/download?code=tcft&format=pdf)
The fourth commandment requires setting apart one day in seven for holy rest and worship, with careful preparation and glad participation in the duties of that day. It forbids neglecting the Sabbath, doing unnecessary work, or using the day for recreation, business, or thoughts that draw the heart away from God. The fifth commandment broadens the law of honor to include all proper authority: parents, rulers, elders, and all relationships of superiors and inferiors. It requires respect, obedience, gratitude, and support; it forbids contempt, disobedience, rebellion, and any failure to fulfill our station faithfully. [thewestminsterstandard](https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
The sixth commandment requires preserving life, including our own and our neighbor’s, through just defense, patience, peace, and helpfulness. It forbids murder, hatred, anger, harmful speech, cruelty, revenge, and neglecting the preservation of life. The seventh commandment requires chastity in body, mind, speech, and behavior, along with careful guarding of ourselves and others. It forbids sexual impurity in every form, including lust, immodesty, and all actions, words, and intentions that lead to uncleanness. The eighth commandment requires lawful and diligent stewardship of possessions, generosity, and fairness in contracts and labor; it forbids theft, fraud, greed, waste, unjust gain, and anything that harms another’s property. [westminsterstandards](https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
The ninth commandment requires maintaining truth between persons, and preserving the good name of our neighbor, especially in witness, judgment, and ordinary conversation. It forbids lying, slander, gossip, false testimony, partiality, and anything that damages truth or reputation. The tenth commandment reaches deepest into desire itself: it requires contentment with our own condition and rejoicing in our neighbor’s good, while forbidding discontentment, envy, and sinful desires for anything belonging to another. This final commandment reveals that even inward longing can be sinful, and it exposes the root from which many outward sins grow. [hillcountrypca](https://hillcountrypca.org/westminster-larger-catechism-q-146-148/)
Overall, the catechism presents the Ten Commandments as a comprehensive moral map: love God wholly, love neighbor truly, and guard even the hidden movements of the heart. [thewestminsterstandard](https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
This article starts off describing the doctrinal errors of a pentacostal denomination and then proceeds to ascribe these errors to Christianity as a whole. There are many Christians who understand biblical Christianity and always have. God preserved His Word so that we could know His mind and His will. If you find yourself following a man, get out your Bible and learn to follow our Lord and Savior instead.
I think one of the foundational reasons as to why there are competing “frameworks of thought” among Christians is the insistence on using the “Systematic Theology” approach to reading the Bible. By artificially forcing the Bible to speak uniformly under a single thematic framework, it inevitably produces different frameworks that are at odds with each other.
I believe Biblical Theology is the better approach. I believe there is wisdom in allowing each author of Sacred Scripture say what they mean to say. In this approach, “both/and” exist instead of “either/or”. So for example, many times the Prophets and Jesus speak out against corrupt systemic oppression and they preach a message of community liberation. And, at the same time, the Prophets, The Apostles, Jesus and wisdom literature speaks about personal, individual holiness.
In the big picture, I would simply offer the idea that The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire an “interpretative framework”, but inspired individuals to speak God’s Word as it related to the historical context in which they were writing. For example, Paul often times must address personal behavior due to the Churches being filled with recent converts to Christ who came from a pagan world and lifestyle. Whereas the Prophets were usually writing to a people who generationally were rooted in Covenant community but abandoned Torah and used their positions within the community to gain oppressive control. Just like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time.
Overall, I think if we can allow a text to just say what it says and stop trying to find out what framework the text supports, it takes the pressure off of us from feeling the need to subscribe to a framework at all.
Greed is a personal sin. Also the Camel in the Eye of the Needle is in response to the Rich young man and the parable of the rich fool is Abbott being more concerned with your inner life than riches.
What you’re willingly ignoring is that if God loves you personally then personal transformation is primary. If you allow God to change you THEN you are about to change the world not the other way around. Being more concerned about changing the world and systems before yourself IS being the rich fool who cares more about worldly things than transforming his inner life.
If you want a “non-Western” example Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is about this exactly.
Thank you for reading. I don't always reply to every comment critiquing my work, as every reader is free to do so, and I often learn something in the process. Since you accuse me of willful ignorance, I will. I wrote, "Greed is probably the most consistently addressed personal behavior in the entire New Testament." So yes, I would agree with you. Additionally, I said, "...sanctification, the transformation of the Christian life, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and flows from justification rather than contributing to it." I would also agree that the personal transformation of life is a central part of the Christian faith, and I believe it happens in community and to the community. Perhaps I am willfully ignorant, but I wonder if you willfully skipped reading those sentences?
Daniel, I just read your post twice and was pleasantly surprised to see that there is finally a focus on how Americans “do church”. I was raised in church and blessed to have visited and participated in my denominations, not just my own. I’ve been around the world as a missionary and grew up overseas in Brazil. I’ve lived in the USA since I was married and have noticed such a difference between following Christ abroad and here. I agree that our focus in the US is different but had never heard it in such plain terms. Thinking about the stories in the Old Testament are good examples of your thoughts.
We need revival and I’m seeing small indicators that many others , like yourself, are willing to take these first hard steps. Thank you!
As they are Methodist and Catholic respectively, they would be operating within those respective frameworks of soteriology and eschatology. Liberation theology is not in place of orthodoxy; it is in addition to it.
Of course!
amen 🙏🏼. Nearly every “you” in the Scriptures is plural.
The Bible speaks mostly to communities, not individuals.
Individualism has plagued western interpretation of the Bible.
Indeed. That is another very helpful observation.
This is probably the most balanced essay out of the ones I have been reading because a large portion of the critique is legitimate. Many churches absolutely have reduced discipleship into behavioral conformity, personal image management, and endless policing of secondary issues while neglecting greed, exploitation, pride, abuse of power, injustice, and care for the vulnerable. Jesus and the prophets really do hammer those sins relentlessly, and modern Western Christianity often does not. The essay is also correct that holiness movements sometimes drifted into treating cultural taboos as though they were the center of the gospel itself. Paul explicitly warns against reducing spirituality to “do not taste, do not touch, do not handle” frameworks detached from genuine transformation. Where I think the piece overcorrects is in creating too sharp a divide between “personal sin” and “structural sin,” as though concern about private morality is mostly a Western distortion while Jesus primarily cared about systems and power structures. The New Testament consistently addresses both. Yes, Jesus speaks against greed and oppression but He also speaks against lust, divorce, hypocrisy, sexual immorality, repentance, forgiveness, envy, hatred, and inward corruption. Paul repeatedly addresses intensely personal moral behavior right alongside economic exploitation and social injustice. The danger is that modern progressive Christianity sometimes flips the imbalance rather than correcting it. Older churches could reduce Christianity into private morality while ignoring injustice. Newer liberation-oriented frameworks can reduce Christianity into social liberation while treating personal holiness, repentance, and moral discipline as secondary or even suspicious. And honestly, I think the strongest line in the entire essay is accidental. “The gospel door is wide open and the hallway inside is very narrow.” That perfectly describes what happens whenever human beings turn grace into tribal conformity systems. But again, that is not uniquely a failure of conservative Christianity. Progressive religious movements can become just as conformity-driven, status-conscious, and morally performative in their own ways. The healthiest corrective is probably not choosing between personal transformation and justice for the vulnerable. The biblical vision consistently holds both together. The prophets condemned exploitation and personal corruption. Jesus confronted oppressive structures and called individuals to repentance. The New Testament never really separates inward transformation from outward love of neighbor the way modern ideological camps often do.
I think this gets some things right, but it also overstates its case.
The strongest part is the criticism of churches that turned holiness into a list of personal rules. There are absolutely traditions that spent more time worrying about smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, and dress codes than they did about greed, exploitation, corruption, or indifference to the poor. The prophets would have had a thing or two to say about that.
I also think the author is right that some Christians have so focused on individual sin that they’ve largely ignored the social dimension of sin. Scripture is full of warnings about abusing power, exploiting workers, neglecting the poor, and perverting justice. That’s not some modern invention. It’s all over the Old Testament and it doesn’t disappear when you get to Jesus.
Where I think the author goes too far is when he starts acting like personal sin is mostly a Western Christian invention or that the New Testament is primarily concerned with systems and structures rather than individuals. It isn’t.
Jesus talks about greed, lust, pride, hypocrisy, repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. Paul talks about the sins of the heart as much as the sins of society. The New Testament doesn’t treat sin simply as harm done to other people. It also treats sin as a broken relationship with God.
That’s why I don’t think the answer is to replace one emphasis with another. Some churches have overemphasized personal piety. Some versions of liberation theology overemphasize social and political liberation. Both are reacting to a real problem. Neither gives the whole picture.
The Bible seems less interested in choosing between personal holiness and justice for the vulnerable than we are. It insists on both. The same prophets who condemned exploitation also called people to repentance. Jesus cared about the poor, but He also told people to go and sin no more.
So I don’t disagree that many churches got the balance wrong. I just don’t think liberation theology discovered something everybody else missed. I think it recovered one part of the biblical picture that some Christians neglected. The mistake is treating that recovered piece as the whole picture.
People coming from the denominational background you did miss out on the broader and deeper teachings afforded in the Westminster standards, especially regarding personal morality. This can lead to all kinds of confusion and misprioritization among the body of Christ, as you've observed.
Here is an AI-generated summary of its teachings on the 10 Commandments specifically:
The Westminster Larger Catechism treats each commandment as a positive guide to love God and neighbor, not merely a list of external prohibitions. It emphasizes that God’s law addresses the heart, so each commandment includes both required duties and forbidden sins in thought, word, and deed. The first four commandments focus chiefly on duties toward God, while the last six focus chiefly on duties toward other people. The catechism repeatedly shows that true obedience is inward and outward, affecting motives, desires, speech, actions, and relationships. [westminsterstandards](https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
In the first commandment, we are required to know, acknowledge, and trust the true God alone, to worship and glorify him, and to have him as our God above all rivals. It forbids atheism, idolatry, superstition, distrust, fear of creatures, and giving to anything else the honor that belongs to God. The second commandment requires receiving, observing, and keeping pure all worship that God has appointed, while forbidding making or using images in worship, or worshiping God in any way not instituted by him. The third commandment requires holy and reverent use of God’s names, titles, attributes, works, and ordinances, and it forbids profaning them in speech, thoughtlessness, false swearing, and irreverent use of sacred things. [chapellibrary](https://www.chapellibrary.org/api/books/download?code=tcft&format=pdf)
The fourth commandment requires setting apart one day in seven for holy rest and worship, with careful preparation and glad participation in the duties of that day. It forbids neglecting the Sabbath, doing unnecessary work, or using the day for recreation, business, or thoughts that draw the heart away from God. The fifth commandment broadens the law of honor to include all proper authority: parents, rulers, elders, and all relationships of superiors and inferiors. It requires respect, obedience, gratitude, and support; it forbids contempt, disobedience, rebellion, and any failure to fulfill our station faithfully. [thewestminsterstandard](https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
The sixth commandment requires preserving life, including our own and our neighbor’s, through just defense, patience, peace, and helpfulness. It forbids murder, hatred, anger, harmful speech, cruelty, revenge, and neglecting the preservation of life. The seventh commandment requires chastity in body, mind, speech, and behavior, along with careful guarding of ourselves and others. It forbids sexual impurity in every form, including lust, immodesty, and all actions, words, and intentions that lead to uncleanness. The eighth commandment requires lawful and diligent stewardship of possessions, generosity, and fairness in contracts and labor; it forbids theft, fraud, greed, waste, unjust gain, and anything that harms another’s property. [westminsterstandards](https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
The ninth commandment requires maintaining truth between persons, and preserving the good name of our neighbor, especially in witness, judgment, and ordinary conversation. It forbids lying, slander, gossip, false testimony, partiality, and anything that damages truth or reputation. The tenth commandment reaches deepest into desire itself: it requires contentment with our own condition and rejoicing in our neighbor’s good, while forbidding discontentment, envy, and sinful desires for anything belonging to another. This final commandment reveals that even inward longing can be sinful, and it exposes the root from which many outward sins grow. [hillcountrypca](https://hillcountrypca.org/westminster-larger-catechism-q-146-148/)
Overall, the catechism presents the Ten Commandments as a comprehensive moral map: love God wholly, love neighbor truly, and guard even the hidden movements of the heart. [thewestminsterstandard](https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/)
This article starts off describing the doctrinal errors of a pentacostal denomination and then proceeds to ascribe these errors to Christianity as a whole. There are many Christians who understand biblical Christianity and always have. God preserved His Word so that we could know His mind and His will. If you find yourself following a man, get out your Bible and learn to follow our Lord and Savior instead.
Excellent post Daniel - thank you!
I think one of the foundational reasons as to why there are competing “frameworks of thought” among Christians is the insistence on using the “Systematic Theology” approach to reading the Bible. By artificially forcing the Bible to speak uniformly under a single thematic framework, it inevitably produces different frameworks that are at odds with each other.
I believe Biblical Theology is the better approach. I believe there is wisdom in allowing each author of Sacred Scripture say what they mean to say. In this approach, “both/and” exist instead of “either/or”. So for example, many times the Prophets and Jesus speak out against corrupt systemic oppression and they preach a message of community liberation. And, at the same time, the Prophets, The Apostles, Jesus and wisdom literature speaks about personal, individual holiness.
In the big picture, I would simply offer the idea that The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire an “interpretative framework”, but inspired individuals to speak God’s Word as it related to the historical context in which they were writing. For example, Paul often times must address personal behavior due to the Churches being filled with recent converts to Christ who came from a pagan world and lifestyle. Whereas the Prophets were usually writing to a people who generationally were rooted in Covenant community but abandoned Torah and used their positions within the community to gain oppressive control. Just like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time.
Overall, I think if we can allow a text to just say what it says and stop trying to find out what framework the text supports, it takes the pressure off of us from feeling the need to subscribe to a framework at all.
Greed is a personal sin. Also the Camel in the Eye of the Needle is in response to the Rich young man and the parable of the rich fool is Abbott being more concerned with your inner life than riches.
What you’re willingly ignoring is that if God loves you personally then personal transformation is primary. If you allow God to change you THEN you are about to change the world not the other way around. Being more concerned about changing the world and systems before yourself IS being the rich fool who cares more about worldly things than transforming his inner life.
If you want a “non-Western” example Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is about this exactly.
Thank you for reading. I don't always reply to every comment critiquing my work, as every reader is free to do so, and I often learn something in the process. Since you accuse me of willful ignorance, I will. I wrote, "Greed is probably the most consistently addressed personal behavior in the entire New Testament." So yes, I would agree with you. Additionally, I said, "...sanctification, the transformation of the Christian life, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and flows from justification rather than contributing to it." I would also agree that the personal transformation of life is a central part of the Christian faith, and I believe it happens in community and to the community. Perhaps I am willfully ignorant, but I wonder if you willfully skipped reading those sentences?
Daniel, I just read your post twice and was pleasantly surprised to see that there is finally a focus on how Americans “do church”. I was raised in church and blessed to have visited and participated in my denominations, not just my own. I’ve been around the world as a missionary and grew up overseas in Brazil. I’ve lived in the USA since I was married and have noticed such a difference between following Christ abroad and here. I agree that our focus in the US is different but had never heard it in such plain terms. Thinking about the stories in the Old Testament are good examples of your thoughts.
We need revival and I’m seeing small indicators that many others , like yourself, are willing to take these first hard steps. Thank you!
https://substack.com/@allendaves/note/p-198160890?r=1xhldx
Not much eschatology in Cone or Guettierez. Their soteriology is also a little anemic. Not much on holiness or grace
As they are Methodist and Catholic respectively, they would be operating within those respective frameworks of soteriology and eschatology. Liberation theology is not in place of orthodoxy; it is in addition to it.
Write-on!
May I repost with attribution on Reimagine.Network ?
Thx 4 considering…