Trying to Paint Over Bad Paint: The Foolish Futility of Self-Sufficiency 

When we moved into our current home five years ago, we moaned when we saw that the back deck had been painted rather than stained. We tried every known remedy to remove all the paint. The best we could do was remove about 50%.

Of course, that means that, if we’re lucky, we can go two years between having to scrape, prime, and re-paint our deck. We keep having to paint over bad paint. And no matter how good the new paint is, it won’t stick for long. What we really need is a totally fresh start.

Trying to Cover Over Our Sins

After scraping, priming, and painting my deck the past few days, I awoke this morning not only sore, but also reflecting. Ever since Adam and Eve, we have tried to paint over bad paint. We have tried to cover over our sins.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (Genesis 3:7).

For Adam and Eve, it didn’t work for two years, or even two seconds. Immediately when faced with the pure holy love of God, they “hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden” (Genesis 3:8).

Though “covered,” Adam realized they were totally exposed. “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid” (Genesis 3:10).

Receiving God’s Coverings

What did Adam and Eve need instead? What do we need? They needed to receive God’s covering rather than trying to cover their sin on their own.

“The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).

So why try to cover? It’s much more than ignorance; it’s foolishness. It’s much more than self-effort; it’s willful, arrogant self-sufficient, proud rebellion.

John R. Stott reveals the depraved nature of our self-sufficient souls.

“The proud human heart is there revealed. We insist on paying for what we have done. We cannot stand the humiliation of acknowledging our bankruptcy and allowing somebody else to pay for us. The notion that this somebody else should be God himself is just too much to take. We would rather perish than repent, rather lose ourselves than humble ourselves. . . . But we cannot escape the embarrassment of standing stark naked before God. It is no use our trying to cover up like Adam and Eve in the garden. Our attempts at self-justification are as ineffectual as their fig-leaves. We have to acknowledge our nakedness, see the divine substitute wearing our filthy rags instead of us, and allow him to clothe us with his own righteousness” (Stott, The Cross of Christ, pp. 162-163).

Our God-Dependent Response to Our Sin

In Soul Physicians, I imagine a God-dependent response to our sin looking something like a combination of Genesis 3 with the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15).

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. Standing exposed as sinfully failed and flawed male and female, naked before Him with whom they have to deal.

Then the naked man and the naked woman heard the song of the LORD God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, as He always had for fellowship. And they stayed.

Adam cried out to God, ‘I am unworthy to be called Your son, for I have sinned against You in my self-sufficiency. I have failed to be the courageous man You designed and called me to be. I have been a coward rather than a protector. Make me like one of your animals, for I am soul-less.’

Eve cried out to God, ‘I am unworthy to be called Your daughter, for I have sinned against You in my self-sufficiency. I have failed to be the completing woman You designed and called me to be. I have poisoned rather than nourished. Make me like one of Your animals, for I am soul-less.”

Instead, the LORD God slew the precious animals He had handcrafted. He shed blood. Carefully, tenderly, with tears streaming down His face, He hand-crafted robes of righteousness for his son and daughter.

Then He ran to them, threw His arms around them, and kissed them repeatedly. Father said to His angelic servants, ‘Quick, bring the best robes that I have hand-crafted and put them on my son and my daughter. Put wedding rings on their fingers and sandals of peace on their feet. Bring the fatted calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine and this daughter of mine were dead and they are alive again.’ So they began to celebrate!” (Soul Physicians, p. 105).

Grace means never having to cover my sin. But Adam and Eve, having doubted God’s goodness, do not focus on His grace. Instead of depending upon God, they depend upon self.

Being naked and afraid, they hide. They turn their backs on and run from God. They work, sewing fig leaves together to make coverings for themselves. They attempt to make themselves acceptable by trying to beautify their ugliness.

In the flesh, we use every strategy at our disposal, every scheme we can imagine, to not need God’s grace. But our efforts are futile. Much more than trying to cover over old paint, we’re trying to cover over sin with the greatest sin of all—works-righteousness and self-sufficiency.

Join the Conversation

What fig leaves do we sew to cover our shame? What view of God does such shame and hiding suggest?

Tags: Adam and Eve, Genesis 3, Grace, John Stott, Sin, Soul Physicians

Satan’s Deception and Sins’ Deceit, by John Newton

Since Satan masquerades as an angel of light, it should be no surprise that he attempts to deceive us into thinking that sin wears a pleasing face. Tim Challies introduced me to these insightful words by John Newton about Satan’s deception and sin’s deceit.

Sin, when viewed by Scripture light,

Is a horrid, hateful sight;

But when seen in Satan’s glass,

Then it wears a pleasing face.

When the gospel trumpet sounds,

When I think how grace abounds,

When I feel sweet peace within,

Then I’d rather die than sin.

When the cross I view by faith,

Sin is madness, poison, death;

Tempt me not, ‘tis all in vain,

Sure I ne’er can yield again.

Satan, for awhile debarred,

When he finds me off my guard,

Puts his glass before my eyes,

Quickly other thoughts arise.

What before excited fears,

Rather pleasing now appears;

If a sin, it seems so small,

Or, perhaps, no sin at all.

Often thus, through sin’s deceit,

Grief, and shame, and loss I meet,

Like a fish, my soul mistook,

Saw the bait, but not the hook.

O my Lord, what shall I say?

How can I presume to pray?

Not a word have I to plead,

Sins, like mine, are black indeed!

Made, by past experience, wise,

Let me learn thy Word to prize;

Taught by what I’ve felt before,

Let me Satan’s glass abhor.

Join the Conversation

How are you using the wonders of the Gospel to expose the horrors of sin? How are you learning that it’s horrible to sin, but wonderful to be forgiven?

I Miss the Depth of the Old Hymns

I confess that in the 1990s I led a church through the change process from traditional hymns and a choir to praise choruses and praise teams.

I now confess that I miss the depth of the old hymns. Yes, some of the modern praise music is improving, led by theologian/songwriters like Keith and Kristyn Getty (In Christ Alone). They’re all too rare, however.

Listen, really listen to most of the praise choruses that we sing in most of our Evangelical church services. Honestly, they could be to almost any “god.” There’s often little in the lyrics to indicate we are praising the Trinitarian, holy-loving, Creator-Redeemer who offers salvation in Christ alone by faith alone through grace alone.

And listen to what you don’t hear much anymore in our praise choruses: Christology, hamartiology, and soteriology.

You say, “What in the world is ‘Christology,’ ‘hamartiology,’ and ‘soteriology’!?”

Proves my point.

Christology: The doctrine of Christ–Who He is and what He has done.

Hamartiology: The doctrine of sin–human sinfulness and our inability to save ourselves.

Soteriology: The doctrine of salvation–cleansing from our guilt and sin by faith alone through grace alone.

I picked up an old hymnal just now and randomly thumbed through it. Consider the lyrics about salvation for guilty sinners in Christ alone.

The Solid Rock: “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus name.”

My Faith Has Found a Resting Place: “My faith has found a resting place, not in device nor creed; I trust the Ever-living One, His wounds for me shall plead. I need no other argument, I need no other plea, it is enough that Jesus died, and that he died for me.”

Nothing but the Blood: “What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Oh precious is the flow that makes me white as snow; no other fount I know, nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

Grace Greater Than Our Sin: “Marvelous grace of our loving Lord, grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt, yonder on Calvary’s mount outpoured, there where the blood of the lamb was spilt. Grace, grace, grace that will pardon and cleanse within, grace, grace, God’s grace, grace that is greater than all my sin.”

There Is a Fountain: “There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel’s veins; and sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stains.”

We don’t sing about blood, about guilt, about sin and sinners much anymore. We don’t sing about Christ and salvation by faith through grace much anymore.

We sing about an anonymous, nameless God who is wonderful and loves us. And that makes us feel good. But does it glorify the Trinitarian God of the Bible who in holy love sent His sinless Son to die for our sins and to be raised for our justification?

I miss the depth of the old hymns.

*Note: If you’re disappointed that I’m saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then please read my comments at the end of my first post in this series: http://tinyurl.com/n8k799.

My Premise: Half Biblical Counseling

Some modern biblical counseling considers the seriousness of sin—sinning, but spends much less time equipping people to minister to the gravity of grinding affliction—suffering. When we provide counseling for sin, but fail to provide counseling and counselor training for suffering, then such biblical counseling is only half biblical.

Let’s Play, “Can You Top This?”

I have suggested that counseling that is truly biblical could be defined as:

Christ-centered, comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counseling depends upon the Holy Spirit to relate God’s inspired truth about people, problems, and solutions to human suffering (through the Christian soul care arts of sustaining and healing) and sin (through the Christian spiritual direction arts of reconciling and guiding) to empower people to exalt and enjoy God and to love others (Matthew 22:35-40) by cultivating conformity to Christ and communion with Christ and the Body of Christ.

If this is true, why then do some biblical counselors minimize suffering? Why do they ignore large tracks of biblical data about “sufferology”?

Throughout this blog mini-series I’ve suggested several answers to those questions. In this post we consider another reason—this one a personal reason.

I believe that there’s great pressure in the biblical counseling “movement” and in the Evangelical world to “prove” one’s “credentials” as a biblical counselor. There’s so much venom out there and false accusations of “psycho-heresy” that some counselors may be tempted to play, “Can You Top This?”

One “biblical counselor” says, “Biblical counseling is about confronting behavioral sin.”

The next counselor, going a step further proclaims, “That’s shallow. Biblical counseling is actually about confronting motivational sins.”

Another counselor responds, “That’s still not deep enough, you have to confront hidden idols of the heart and false lovers of the soul.”

Each counselor “proves” his or her right to claim the mantle of “biblical counselor” because of an ever-deepening emphasis on the depth of sin. Each counselor seems to think that the right pedigree for comprehensive biblical counseling is met through depth confrontation of sin.

Now, please hear me clearly. I believe in a depth of exposure of sin.

In Soul Physicians and in Spiritual Friends, I show that in biblical and historical reconciling we help one another to understand that it’s horrible to sin and it’s wonderful to be forgiven.

Yes, truly biblical counseling exposes sin comprehensively: relationally, spiritually, socially, rationally, volitionally, and emotionally. I have no qualms with that whatsoever.

Incompetent to Counsel

However, there seems to be a false assumption that the person who exposes sin the most comprehensively is the person with the most comprehensive model of biblical counseling.

That’s like asking:

“Of Job’s three miserable counselors, who was the most comprehensive biblical counselor—Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar?”

Well, duh! None of the above!

They each exposed sin. In fact, they competed with one another to be named the champion sin-spotter. Yet God said they did not speak right of Job nor of God.

In the name of trying to be comprehensively biblical, they became incompetent to counsel.

The Fear of Man

Let’s be honest, in Evangelical circles, we get quite competitive about proving our bona fides (supplying evidence that serves to guarantee a person’s good standing, reputation, and authentic credentials).

If I am a Reformed Calvinist, then I’m going to out-Calvin Calvin! “A five-point Calvinist? No way, I’m a 5.5 pointer!” (If you don’t get that, it’s okay.)

Sad to say, in Evangelical circles we succumb to the pressure to out-do one another in order to prove that we have cornered the market on the current “in” issue. “I’m more biblical than you are because . . .”

For counselors today, is it possible that our egos get involved? Is it possible that “eye service as men pleasers” (as the King James puts it) gets involved? Is it possible that the “fear of man” tempts us to become like Job’s counselors?

Nobody wants to be an “outsider.” Nobody wants to be called “weak on sin.” Nobody wants to be labeled a “psycho-heretic.”

So, to be an “insider,” to be called “strong against sin,” to be labeled a “biblical counselor,” we yield to the temptation to bark louder than the next guy about sin’s depths, while rarely addressing suffering’s depths.

We yield to the temptation to minimize suffering because we fear that someone will call us weak on sin. We fear that we’ll be accused of making excuses for sin by talking about suffering.

Let’s refuse to give into the temptation to prove our credentials, to brandish our pedigree, or to please men, by outdoing one another in pitting sin against suffering.

Biblical counseling is rightly big on confronting sin. Hopefully, it is rightly even bigger on sharing grace (where sin abounds, grace super-abounds—Romans 5:20). And hopefully, it is equally big on dealing with suffering.

If we truly want to be comprehensively biblical, then let’s be sure that we address sin comprehensively and that we address suffering comprehensively.

*Note: If you’re disappointed that I’m saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then please read my comments at the end of my first post in this series: http://tinyurl.com/n8k799.

My Premise: Half Biblical Counseling

Some modern biblical counseling considers the seriousness of sin—sinning, but spends much less time equipping people to minister to the gravity of grinding affliction—suffering. When we provide counseling for sin, but fail to provide counseling and counselor training for suffering, then such biblical counseling is only half biblical.

My Premise Expanded: One-Quarter Biblical Counseling

Even when some biblical counselors do address suffering and sufferers, their focus seems to be upon “directive” counseling that exhorts the suffering Christian to be faithful. When we provide only or primarily directive exhortations to faithfulness, but fail to engage in biblical “sustaining” (empathy, compassionate commiseration, sustaining, weeping with those who weep, sharing Scripture and soul, “climbing in the casket”), and when we fail to engage in biblical “healing” (encouragement, collaborative exploration of biblical responses, trialogues, spiritual conversations, scriptural explorations, “celebrating the resurrection”), then such biblical counseling is only one-quarter biblical. (For a fuller development of biblical and historical sustaining and healing, please see Spiritual Friends: http://tinyurl.com/coh23r).

Not Conclusion, but Commencement

This thirteen-part series could easily be month-long. In fact, it could be book-long.

However, it’s time to conclude.

No. Not conclude, but commence.

Even in “final counseling sessions,” I’ve never liked the word “terminate”! It’s like we are dispensing with our spiritual friend.

I prefer the word “commencement” for the final official meeting, because we are celebrating with our spiritual friend his or her commencing a new beginning as he or she connects more deeply with Christ and the Body of Christ and more fully reflects the image of Christ.

So also, in this blog mini-series, I don’t like the word “conclude.” That could imply that I believe I have cornered the market on the right way to do biblical counseling. That’s not my mindset at all. In fact, you’ll note that in this series and throughout my speaking, writing, and consulting, I quote a great deal from “that great cloud of witnesses”—biblical and historical.

The ideas presented in this series are not “Kellemen’s concepts. I believe that soul care for suffering (sustaining and healing) and spiritual direction for sin (reconciling and guiding) combine to offer a biblically and historically-based Christ-centered, comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed approach to biblical counseling and spiritual formation.

That leads to another reason I prefer “commencement” over “conclude” or “conclusion.” This is still just one person’s “take” on what Church history and the Bible have to say about “comprehensive” biblical counseling.

What Say Ye?

I’ve had many, many emails, Twitter messages, Facebook posts, etc., about this series. It’s been fantastic and fascinating.

Let the conversation continue; let it commence.

Let’s all “graduate” to a Berean-like discussion and application of truly comprehensive biblical counseling.

Let’s stir one another on to love and good deeds.

Let’s encourage one another as we see the day approaching.

Let’s sustain, heal, reconcile, and guide one another.

Let’s minister to those who are facing suffering and to those who are battling besetting sins.

Let’s equip pastors, lay people, and professional Christian biblical counselors with and for comprehensive ministry.

Let’s carefully define “biblical counseling” to nuance and represent what the Bible means when it talks about one another Body life ministry.

As I said, let the conversation continue; let it commence.

*Note: If you’re disappointed that I’m saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then please read my comments at the end of my first post in this series: http://tinyurl.com/n8k799.

My Premise

Some modern biblical counseling considers the seriousness of sin—sinning, but spends much less time equipping people to minister to the gravity of grinding affliction—suffering. When we provide counseling for sin, but fail to provide counseling and counselor training for suffering, then such biblical counseling is only half biblical.

Sin-Colored Glasses

Some pastors, in arguing against making suffering a formal aspect of biblical counseling definitions, training, and practice, have said, “But Bob, my people don’t come to me with suffering issues. They come with sin issues!”

What are we to make of this?

First, let me be honest, having pastored three churches, when I hear such statements, I have to pick my jaw off the table. Parishioners have come to me with every conceivable issue of sin and of suffering.

Second, I wonder how much this might have to do with the “enculturation” of these particular parishioners. Have these individuals learned that it is appropriate to bring “sin issues” to their pastors, but that it is not appropriate for them to bring “suffering issues” to their pastors?

Third, is it possible that these pastors see all of life with “sin-colored lenses”? So that even if a parishioner comes with a life hurt, perhaps the pastor sees the hurt as an opportunity to expose sinful responses.

Fourth, I have found that in a local church, when the message of the pulpit clearly communicates that “it’s normal to hurt,” “it’s possible to hope,” “it’s horrible to sin and wonderful to be forgiven,” and “it’s supernatural to mature,” that the entire congregation feels free to openly discuss all of life. And they do so both with the pastor and with one another. When we preach and teach the whole counsel of God, which includes sin and suffering, then the Body of Christ freely relates with one another about all of life.