What More? 4.10.2025

     “He gave His life, What more could He do?”

    So goes the key thought of a chorus familiar to many. Written during the "First Wave" (my phrasing, feel free to use) of contemporary style worship music the chorus Oh, How He Loves You and Me asks a simple question of disciples. What more, really, could Jesus do to save us beyond the events of the passion. It would appear to be a question that needs to be routinely re-asked, lest the rhetorical answer be forgotten. 

    Though it seems to be getting a bit long in the tooth, the chorus does exhibit, if even hesitatingly, the beginning of the ongoing deconstruction (yes, you read that correctly) of Christian theology and practice by believing Christians which began seeping into our minds in the mid-twentieth century. Though many who do not understand, rail incessantly against Structuralism, Literary Theory, Post Modernism in general, and Deconstruction in particular, they have unwittingly participated in the ultimate project of these multidisciplinary approaches to truth. 

    When we strip away all the hoopla, the DEI drivel, the whining and complaining, the fear mongering, duplicity, and theory, “Deconstruction” for us, amounts to nothing more than the latest attempt to shift the object of Christian faith. The Enlightenment began the process that ultimately resulted in sociology, anthropology, and literary theory getting their shot at the Bible. And while all those disciplines are useful in helping believers understand scripture, they can also be combined and leveraged in such a way that they create a shift in community perception. Which these disciplines did and continue to do and even the simple chorus Oh, How He Loves You and Me did not escape totally. 

    In the Bible, as much as may be said about sinful humanity, (us, as it were) God is both subject and object. In the New Testament this concern with God becomes particularized (Uh, shall we say Incarnate) in Jesus. The Enlightenment project has never been merely about the way we study, or even how we study the Bible. It has always been about shifting the subject, the object, and the topic of the conversation from God to us. Sociologists and Anthropologists talk about people groups. Literary Theorists pit Readers and Communities against Authors and their Texts. All the conversations about “what is real” whether complex or simple are designed to delude us into flipping the subject and object from God to Us. Or to be as blunt about it as possible to make the conversation about me, not Him. 

    So, the chorus in question asks rightly, “What More?”, though it still cannot help but hedge its bet by asking the question in such a way that the primary concern is not His deed, but our need. “…Oh, How He loves you, Oh, how He loves me, Oh how He loves you and me!!” 

    Most of the drivel about the damage that deconstruction does considers it an external threat to the Church. That threat we can deal with. The real issue is the extent to which the Church has adopted, leveraged, and been formed by the very threat we decry! There are many issues I might untangle, let me give you a just a brief idea of how the full Post-Modern project has practically defined the current Christian era. I will use the (for me) common grid of Biblical, Theological, and Historical analysis to describe the inroads the Post-Modern project has made into the believing Church. Let us briefly consider three examples. 

Biblical 

    The question “What does this text mean to you?” is a primary exhibit to the triumph of the ethos of Post Modern thought in the Church. I’ve heard it at hundreds of studies and classes and, sadly, even in sermons. It is so commonplace that few even recognize how radical or dangerous it can be. This question encapsulates the move, in Biblical study(ies) from what God thought and revealed through the author of a text, to the reader. 

    Many, to be sure ask this question not in an absolute sense but in a hasty move towards applying the truth of a text to current contexts or situations. Be that as it may, as commonly used the question misses the mark making the reader(s) the ultimate source of meaning rather than the words of the text as they communicate the intent of the Author. 

    What to do? Preachers certainly, and all teachers assuredly should be taught or learn how to analyze the objective content of the texts we preach or teach before moving on to matters of application. What more could He do? Is a question not answered by introspection but by inspection of the relevant New Testament texts; Gospel and Epistle for universally applicable truths that are derived from the texts which speak to every disciple who wishes to be obedient—regardless of what the personally think the text means. This kind of discipline allows for growth and often requires changing one’s mind. 

Historical

    The assertion “This is the most important time, ever!” Is of course, perennial. Virtually every generation views the entirety of God’s work through the lens of contemporary culture and events. From this tendency, the Church has seldom escaped. Yet, it is always necessary for disciplined reflection to keep the present in balance with the past, and to keep what is immediate in balance with the eternal. 

    We live in an increasingly self-focused generation, compounding risk of historical myopia. Every event is the best, worst, grandest, most important—ever. This is nothing more than narcissism run amok. Do important, even significant events happen in the present? Yes! Perhaps it is ironic that knowing this requires the perspective of historical analysis to make that judgement. You can’t, by definition, know it now. The significance of any historical event, even those occurring now can only be known as the broader historical context expands. 

    This is but a single example of how Post Modernism has altered our perception of History. Someone who thinks that the present is the only reliable gauge for God’s work will be tempted to discount, discredit, or dismiss the very history which has formed the present within which we are embedded. 

    This prejudice also dislodges the centrality of the crucifixion as the central event in the history of the Christian faith. Jesus did and has continued to do many things throughout the history of the Church. But none compares to His defining dying declaration of the cross. 

Theological

    The next assertion, as is appropriate in discussing contemporary theological developments is synthetic, constructed from various observations of the current theological climate of the broader Christian community. As such it is it is emblematic of the problem. “God wants you to be happy, wealthy, healthy, and in power.” This is a central underlying tenet of contemporary Neo-charismatic Apostolic thinking. It is the heretical focus on my needs, my wants, and my temporal satisfaction as the key to understanding the purpose of the Church. Rather than the big picture, every divine concern is collapsed into the individual’s perceived need. Not only is it heresy, but it is also nonsense. Lacking a rigorous hermeneutic of Scripture and being almost willingly blind to actual History it is inevitable that the theological system which has infected much of the Church is based on individual ego satisfaction. 

    I will keep this discussion short as I’ve already taken more of your time than I had intended. First, it is a Theology which ignores the past. Second, it is a Theology which ignores the global nature of the Church. Third, it so marginalizes the Cross, that other important theological doctrines (Christology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Pneumatology…etc.) are either ignored or completely redefined. If you think you have new revelations from a new Apostle, it is clear that the Bible and History have no role in your theology. Call it whatever you want but it is not in any since historic Biblical Christianity. 

Nothing 

    Jesus loves us. He died a brutal death in order that we might be saved. He was raised to empower our inclusion in His own eternal life. That is Gospel. We squander our resources on things not a part of the Gospel. Some are important and need done in a world far more complex and advanced than was the first century. But what we think and how we act are grounded in scripture and resonate theologically and historically throughout the ages. 

    And yes, every age makes it “All about us.” I understand that basic truth of human nature.  But it seems that the twenty-first Century Church has taken that human proclivity to the extreme both within and without the Church. Our task as believers and our calling as preachers is to constantly make our message center on Jesus. We must work hard to keep that promise because we are swimming upstream against some powerful cultural trends. The solution is to first recognize them and then to begin to push back. Not through dominance but through pastorally driven preaching and teaching. 

    The question at issue, “What more could He do?” Is, of course, rhetorical. It’s not intended as a riddle. It is not ironic. It is not mysterious. What more, could He do? The simple answer is “nothing.”