“Jesus smashes the empty cup of your felt needs”, but it is freedom! Freedom from constantly needing God and other people to satisfying every desire you have. Freedom from feeling angry or depressed when your felt needs aren’t met. And freedom to prioritize God over self and others over self, as Jesus laid out clearly when asked what the two greatest commandments were.

What do you need? Such a broad question has a number of answers. You might think “I need food to live.” Or perhaps you need respect from your spouse. Biblically, you need the Lord’s forgiveness in Christ. While some “needs” are legitimate biological needs (like food and water) or biblically-defined spiritual needs (like peace with God), a lot of “needs” you and I have on a given day could be put into a category of “felt needs.” They aren’t needs that come from explicit Scripture and they aren’t literally needed to keep us breathing.
How you and I think about felt needs has vast theological implications. It is very easy to assume that when the Bible talks about joy and satisfaction in Christ it means Jesus will provide for all of our felt needs. For example, perhaps you have a felt need of a romantic relationship. Did Jesus promise to satisfy that desire? When does that desire, even if it isn’t inherently sinful, become a sinful lust? I am currently reading through “When People are Big and God is Small” and a quote from the book helped me immensely when thinking through these questions.
“If I stand before (Jesus) as a cup waiting to be filled with psychological satisfaction, I will never feel quite full. Why? First, because my lusts are boundless; by their very nature they can’t be filled.
Second, because Jesus does not intend to satisfy my selfish desires. Instead, he intends to break the cup of psychological need (lusts), and not fill it.
“When People Are Big and God is Small” by Edward Welch
Most of our “needs” are really lusts in disguise.
This quote comes from an entire chapter where Welch seeks to distinguish between different types of “needs”. According to Welch, there are biological needs, spiritual needs, and what he calls “psychological needs”. The first two are self-explanatory but Welch spends a significant amount of time discussing psychological needs. Essentially, Welch makes the case that the prevailing view of humanity in the modern day it that we are empty cups that need to be filled. Humans have extensive longings that can either be fulfilled by sin or by God.
The problem with this model, according to Welch, is that oftentimes “longings” or “needs” are really just sinful lusts in disguise. They become idolatrous desires that you and I expect God to meet. You and I can desire even good things more than we desire God’s glory. Or you can desire the right thing for sinful reasons. For example, I was reflecting after reading this chapter that a “psychological need” I find within my own heart is a need to be respected by others. When people give me the respect I feel I need, I end up feeling pretty good about myself.
But what happens when my felt needs of respect and approval from others are not met? I end up either angry or depressed. Now, at this point I could address these felt needs by saying to myself “God has given me all the approval and acceptance I need in Christ.”
Read More
Related Posts:

The spiritual house of God, full of living stones (us) who serve the cornerstone (Christ), live their lives as a holy nation among the nations. We are like resident aliens—long-term residents of a city or world that is not our own. For we are seeking a better city “that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10). Put more directly, “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb 13:14).

Christians sometimes debate politics. Some reason that if a nation has a majority of Christians, then we might speak of a Christian Nation with particular Christian laws and habits. Others hope for a new political order ushered in by Christ on earth that revives the laws of the old covenant for today.
Given the landscape of these debates, I wonder why few discussions highlight Peter’s political theology as expressed in 1 Peter? There, he provides not only political categories to identify us as Christians but also specific ways in which we act out this identity politically, economically, and socially as well as what it looks like when political powers use force against Christians.
While Peter does not aim to answer every question (and we should not press this one letter to do so), the apostle gives us categories for political identity and action. As Peter argues, we should see ourselves as resident aliens who do not belong to this world because we are born again as a holy nation and royal priesthood whose political orientation focuses on proclaiming God’s excellencies and holiness of action.
Resident Aliens
Peter opens the letter by calling Christians “elect exiles” in a diaspora (1 Pet 1:1). The reason why Christians are exiles in this world is because they are a new people: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people” (1 Pet 2:10). Peter here draws on Hosea just as Paul does in Romans to indicate that Jews and Gentiles together are one new people of God (Hos 1:6, 9, 10; 2:23; Rom 9:25, 26; 10:19).
In the language of the anonymous letter to Diognetus, written in the early 100s, Christians are a “third race” (Letter §1). In Paul’s wording, Christ has created “in himself one new [human being] in place of the two,” that is, Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:15).
As newly born again (1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2:2), Christians become a new human being, distinct from Jew and Gentile—the other two biblical categories for people groups. We are in the analogy of Peter “living stones” that make up “a spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:5). As living stones in this spiritual temple, we become a “royal priesthood” and a “holy nation” whose vocation is to offer “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet 2:9, 5).
Because we no longer belong to this world and our inheritance lies in heaven (1 Pet 1:4), we have become a people for God’s own possession (1 Pet 2:9). We are sojourners and exiles, explains Peter (1 Pet 2:11). In other words, we are akin to the modern category of resident aliens, which is what the Greek word for sojourner means.[1]
As Craig Keener explains, “As members of a new people (1 Pet. 2:9–10), Christ-followers are aliens on earth (1:1, 17; 2:11), but they should behave honorably in human societies, just as societies expected of other resident aliens (2:12–14) (1 Peter, 147).”
The biblical analogies of Israel in exile as they resided in Babylon, willing the good of the city of there, apply today (Jer 29:7). Hence, Peter even says he is writing from the city of Babylon in the letter’s closing (1 Pet 5:13).
And even further back, Abraham teaches us what it means to be called out of the land in which we were first born to seek the city of God. Keener again explains, “Abraham is a “foreigner” and “resident alien” among long-term residents of Canaan (Gen. 23:4), and the psalmist, echoing Abraham’s experience, is a “foreigner” and “resident alien” before God, like his ancestors (Ps. 38:13 [ET 39:12])” (1 Peter, 148).
“I am a sojourner and foreigner among you,” says Abraham (Gen 23:4). And so he was because he was not seeking a city built with human hands but one whose maker and founder was God.
The spiritual house of God, full of living stones (us) who serve the cornerstone (Christ), live their lives as a holy nation among the nations. We are like resident aliens—long-term residents of a city or world that is not our own. For we are seeking a better city “that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10).
Read More
Related Posts:

The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.

As a member of Midway Presbyterian Church who recognizes and appreciates its importance to both my region of the country and the denomination to which I have fled as an SBC refugee, I have made it a point to closely follow the various controversies that exist within my own church, though I am not personally a party to the disputes. I was dismayed to read pastor Terry Johnson’s article criticizing the SJC’s ruling which overturned the conviction of RE Phil Dudt, finding his critique both poorly reasoned and generally unhelpful in that it serves to obfuscate the matter rather than clarify it.
Pastor Johnson complains that the SJC does not understand the context surrounding the case, but he provides very little for his readers as he does not even explain what Dudt was tried and convicted for. It is necessary for anyone interested in the matter to read the summary of the facts here.
On July 8, 2020, the session called a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing three assistant pastors as associate pastors to take place on July 19, 2020. Phil Dudt sent an email to the congregation in which he asked the congregation to support a substitute motion to postpone the meeting until January, 2021. The full text of his email can be read in the summary of the facts. He gave several reasons for this motion, one of which was the fact that Midway had only recently been involved in another controversy regarding the handling of officer nominations in which the SJC ruled against the session. His motion to postpone the meeting failed, and the congregation subsequently voted to install the three candidates as associate pastors.
The session at Midway then brought charges against RE Dudt, alleging that his email was a violation of the 5th and 6th ordination vows, as well as the ninth commandment. Dudt was convicted of the charges, appealed that conviction to the Northwest Georgia Presbytery, and then to the SJC.
The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.
Johnson’s first stated reason for his disappointment was that the SJC does not recognize the larger context within which the complaint was made. He speaks of a contentious minority that has been engaged in a prolonged battle against the will of the majority. The complaint being considered by the SJC was an appeal filed directly by Phil Dudt himself, not by any third-party members of the church. The context for the complaint is the actions of Phil Dudt and the trial that ensued, not the actions of other people within the church that took place before or after. There does exist a portion of the congregation which is vehemently opposed to the session at Midway in general and pastor David Hall in particular, but Phil Dudt has never publicly identified with them. Many of these members are anonymous in their opposition and therefore would be impossible to identify with in the first place. His only association with them is the fact that he is an officer of the church (which is a connection to this faction shared by all members of the session, not just Dudt) and the fact that they agreed with his arguments for postponing a congregational meeting called for the purpose of voting on a motion to install three associate pastors.
The second point made by Johnson in his critique of the SJC decision is the one I find most disappointing by far. The SJC agreed that there was no evidence in the ROC to support the charges that were brought against Dudt. Specifically, what the session failed to show was that Dudt’s actions constituted an offense according to BCO 29-1. This led to the sustainment of specifications of error 4, 5, 6, 14, and 24. Johnson argues that this constitutes an argument from silence and that the proper course of action by the SJC would have been to investigate further because, “the benefit of the doubt, or shall we say, the presumption of innocence, should be given to the majority in the local lower courts.”
This is extremely flawed logic. Pointing out that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges is not an argument from silence. An argument from silence is when the absence of evidence for one proposition is taken as evidence for the truth of a contrary proposition, particularly in the field of historical analysis. The question being decided by the SJC was not whether Phil Dudt was innocent or guilty but rather whether or not the session erred in finding him guilty. The accused party has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The point is not that the lack of evidence of his guilt proves his innocence but rather that the failure to provide evidence of guilt renders a conviction unjustified.
More importantly, Johnson’s reasoning here shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The burden of proof when bringing charges against any member of the church, let alone an elder, is on the one bringing the charges (BCO 29-1), not on the one being accused. This was addressed in specification of error 31, which was sustained in the SJC ruling. If no evidence to sustain the charges is provided, the proper course of action is for the court to render a verdict of “not guilty,” not to delay judgment until evidence can be found. The question being decided by the SJC was whether or not the conviction of Dudt by the court was warranted. To “presume innocence” on the part of the majority of the court on that question is to presume guilt on the part of Phil Dudt. Pastor Johnson’s logic essentially amounts to saying that the SJC should have upheld the rulings of the lower courts because they were the rulings of the lower courts. That is obvious question-begging and would defeat the entire purpose of the appeals process.
Johnson’s third point, that technical errors of process should not be given undue weight in light of the larger context is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. He made no effort to explain how exactly the SJC gave undue weight to technical errors of process, and the facts do not support the claim. The SJC did not overrule Phil Dudt’s conviction on the basis of procedural errors but rather on the basis that the charges upon which he was convicted were unfounded and unproven. Furthermore, a number of the specifications of error listed by Johnson as technical errors of process are not in fact mere technicalities but rather are errors which fundamentally undermine the character of justice, particularly errors 25, 30, and 31.
Pastor Johnson’s fourth point, which he calls the heart of the issue, is another exercise in circular reasoning. He asserts that Phil Dudt “does not have the right to send private communication without the knowledge of the session, especially one which contradicts, and in the contradiction denigrates the session.” We can all agree that he does not have the right to denigrate the session, but the whole point here is that he did not denigrate the session. Phil Dudt only denigrated the session if you consider the act of arguing in favor of a substitute motion to be denigrating in itself. Such a position would be absurd. Dudt expressing disagreement with a decision of the session to call a congregational meeting to elect three associate pastors no more denigrates the session than pastor Johnson expressing disagreement with an SJC ruling denigrates the SJC. Dudt’s reasoning for delaying the meeting in no way denigrated the session. He did not even voice opposition to the session’s proposal to install the three associate pastors. All he argued for was to postpone the meeting until the following January. Johnson’s characterization of Dudt’s actions presuppose his guilt, and then he uses that presupposed guilt as a basis to criticize the SJC’s ruling overturning the conviction.
Pastor Johnson goes on to point out how the SJC decision has injured the ministry of a veteran, faithful, and devout minister. I assume he is referring to pastor David Hall. This is true, and I largely share the concern. Johnson explains that Hall, “has sustained constant, false, and destructive attacks from an organized and determined minority. At the foundation of their bitter opposition was an orderly process whereby the session voted to nominate assistant ministers to serve as associate ministers, and the congregation voted to concur with the recommendation to call the assistant ministers as associates. The minority did not like the decisions or the processes, though both were in order. They simply refused to submit to the majority.”
First, it is worth noting that Johnson’s assertion that both the decision and processes were in order is not a matter of unanimous agreement. The question of the orderliness of the process became the subject of another controversy when thirteen ordained members of Midway signed a 40-5 credible report alleging various BCO violations stemming from that meeting. That report was viewed as legitimate enough for the Review of Presbytery Records Committee to unanimously recommend that it be referred to the SJC for adjudication. That recommendation was ultimately rejected by the General Assembly by a 54% – 46% vote. Whichever side one might take on the questions surrounding that meeting, I do not think it is properly charitable to assume that these issues were raised out of nothing more than a stubborn refusal to submit to the will of the majority. It strikes me as unlikely that so many people—including many who were not themselves involved—would see legitimacy in the objections if those objections could not have been raised in good faith.
More importantly, even if you agree that the actions taken by the minority after the congregational meeting is a stubborn refusal to submit to a legitimate decision of the majority, that has nothing to do with the case of Phil Dudt. The actions for which he was tried and convicted occurred before the meeting, not after. He was not one of the signers of the 40-5 report. At no point did he indicate any unwillingness to submit to the results of that congregational meeting, and has taken no action to undermine it.
While I share pastor Johnson’s overarching concerns about the fact that many members of Midway have made use of this SJC ruling to launch all sorts of attacks on David Hall, it does not follow that the SJC made the wrong ruling in the case. Consideration should be given to the fact that Phil Dudt is also a veteran, faithful, and devout minister, and that his conviction did injury to his ministry as a ruling elder. To uphold a wrong conviction which injured one minister for the sake of protecting another from criticism would have been blatant partiality on the part of our denomination’s highest court, and I am thankful that did not happen.
As I see it, the true heart of the issue here is whether or not Phil Dudt deserved to be convicted of the charges that were brought against him on the basis of his email to the congregation. How an email advocating the postponement of a congregational meeting which contained no false statements, no accusations or assignment of ill motives, and no opposition to the proposed action itself constitutes violence to the unity, peace, or purity of the church, lack of subjection to the brethren in the Lord, or a violation of the ninth commandment is beyond any reasonable comprehension. That is why the SJC unanimously overturned the conviction, and I do not believe they erred in their judgment in doing so.
Jonathan McElrath is member of Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Ga.
Related Posts: