Sermon Video: God's Word, not our word - 1 Corinthians 14:36-40

Bringing his instructions about propriety and order within the church to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the Christians at the Church of Corinth that they were not the ones who created the Scriptures, nor were they the only ones to whom it was given.  Paul is reminding them of the authority of Scripture over them, and of their need to conform to the Word of God.  The principle behind this is easily applied to churches in any time or place, as we too must respect the authority of God's Word and not attempt to substitute what God has said through the Spirit for our own judgment.  What of those who ignore this warning, who teach/preach against what the Word declares?  Paul declares that they will be ignored, and three examples of this are given in the message: Arius' false 4th century doctrine regarding Jesus (which the Church properly denounced through the Council of Nicaea), the dualist belief of the Cathars in 11th century France (which the Church immorally dealt with through a genocidal war and mass burning of people at the stake), and the contemporary example of the Prosperity Gospel of Paula White-Cain (which the Church has not yet rejected).  The point is, heretics and charlatans have always been with us and our need to remain on our guard, and judge those who speak/write by the Word of God, will remain.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'?

During a conference held at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley CA, Pastor John MacArthur responded to a word-association game when the host gave him the name: Beth Moore, with a simple answer, 'Go home'.  The crowd erupted in laughter with John MacArthur continuing his comment by disparagingly linking Beth Moore to feminism, female politicians, the MeToo movement, Paula White-Cain, and comparing her to a TV jewelry salesperson.  It was designed to make headlines, and it did, before considering my observations below, take a moment to read some of the news articles about it:

John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers by Leonardo Blair of The Christian Post

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore ‘Go Home’: 3 Ways to Disagree Better by Ryan Denison of Christian Headlines

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore to 'Go Home,' Says Bible Doesn't Support Female Preachers by Jenny Rose Spaudo of Charisma News

1. The question asked by Tom Friel was intended to draw the response it received.
When Tom Friel prefaced his question by asking for a 'pithy' response, and then said, 'Beth Moore' to that panel, at that conference, he knew that whatever the answer was the crowd would hoot and howl with laughter.  The question was asked so as to humiliate Beth Moore, and belittle those who do not agree with a complimentarian view of the role of men and women.  There are God-honoring men and women who hold a complimentarian view, and God-honoring men and women who hold an egalitarian view (and those in between).  Mockery is not debate, derision is not enlightening, such behavior is expected from a late-night comic, disappointing from a politician, and unbecoming of a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ.

2. The sustained and loud laughter of the audience, aimed at another human being, especially one who claims Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a poor testimony to the many who will hear it.
What exactly is funny about 'Go home'?  It seems that the vast majority of the audience has an extremely low opinion of Beth Moore, and while it is their right as Americans to express their opinion, even in derisive laughter, having the legal right does not make an action morally right.  If this is how we treat each other, and sadly we do much worse than this too, what are we telling non-Christians about our unity in Christ?  {I know, some are reading this and thinking, "Beth Moore is a heretic!  She has defied the Word of God by teaching men, she deserves what she gets!"  There are two flaws in that line of thought: (1) To invalidate a person's salvation in Jesus Christ based primarily, if not solely, upon a differing interpretation of the role of women in the Church is a prime example of Majoring in the Minors, that is dangerously elevating a secondary theological position over and above the Gospel, thus in essence making that particular position more important than whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins. (2)  Does God delight in the destruction of sinners?  Even the vilest among us began life as a child of God, made in the image of our Creator; our glee at the downfall of even those who richly deserve it does not reflect well upon our own appreciation for how we are entirely dependent upon the grace of God for our own salvation.

3. The answer, 'Go home', reflects a cultural position, not a theological one.
John MacArthur doesn't believe that culture should be used to interpret the Bible (As an aside, we are all products of our culture, we don't live in a vacuum, so no interpretation can be entirely devoid of cultural influence.  Our goal should be awareness of our own culturally inherited presuppositions and biases, thus allowing us to counter-act them when necessary), but in this case his view that "a woman's place is in the home" isn't a Biblical one, certainly not one that would be understood in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world where both men and women worked primarily from home, but rather is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution's sharp divide between employment and family life.  In other words, the idea that a man is supposed to earn a living, and a woman is supposed to raise the children and take care of the house, is the by-product of modern culture, hardly the definitive basis for a sound biblical doctrine of what a God-honoring society ought to look like.  {For more on this idea, read the article from Christianity Today by Jen Pollock Michel: A Message to John MacArthur: The Bible Calls Both Men and Women to ‘Go Home’ }  Had John MacArthur responded, 'Shut up', it would have also been crass, but at least it would have reflected his complimentarian theology, and not his modern conservative cultural viewpoint.  If the egalitarians are wrong to view the NT passages regarding the role of women in the Church with a post-modern cultural lens, so too must the complimentarians be wrong when they view those same NT passages through a modern one.

4. 'Go home' reflects a deeper distrust/dislike of female leadership, beyond discussion of biblical standards for pastors/elders, and a desire to deny them that in America.
Again, had John MacArthur confined his answer to the question of whether or not Beth Moore ought to hold a position of leadership within the Church, even those who disagree with him regarding the interpretation of the relevant scriptural passages would have been having a discussion about an age old, and worthy issue in the realm of biblical interpretation: timeless vs. time-bound commandments.  This very question is central to much of the book of Acts as Peter and Paul must come to grips with how to apply the Mosaic Law to the new gentile converts to Christianity.  However, as John MacArthur further explained his answer he said this, “The primary effort in feminism is not equality. They don’t want equality. That’s why 99 percent of plumbers are men. They don’t want equal power to be a plumber. They want to be senators, preachers, congressmen, president. The power structure in a university, they want power, not equality and this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural, so I think this is feminism gone to church. This is why we can’t let the culture exegete the Bible.”  {For that last sentence, see #3 above} Are we supposed to be fearful that women want to be senators, congressmen, even president?  How is this any business of the Church?  Should the Church oppose the election of godly women?  We ought to judge any would-be leader of our country by the same standard, regardless of whether that candidate is a man or a woman.  Let me give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt here, and assume his fear is of women with a non-biblical worldview gaining power in society, but again the point must be made, what has this to do with Beth Moore?  By connecting Beth Moore to the female politicians whom his audience strongly dislikes, (Hilary Clinton for example) it makes the actual teaching of Beth Moore, her actual goals and attitudes, irrelevant, she becomes one of 'them'.  If on the other hand, John MacArthur does want to extend the complimentary theological viewpoint from its current turf, the home/marriage and the Church, to a general crusade against female politicians, in any form, that would be extremely troubling; let us hope this was simply a poor attempt at guilt-by-association.  A woman holding a position of power is no more or less moral or immoral than a man; we must judge people based upon the content of their character, nothing else.

5. The jewelry insult by John MacArthur was demeaning and sexist: “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn't mean you should be preaching.”
There doesn't seem to be much explanation needed. 

6. Paula White-Cain is not a legitimate comparison to Beth Moore.
To lump his objections to Beth Moore, based upon complimentary theology, to those that many have toward Paul White-Cain, based upon objections to her Prosperity Gospel message and willingness to promise blessings/miracles to those who give her money, is to unjustly smear Beth Moore with guilt by association.  If Beth Moore has made mistakes in what she has said or written (as have we all), then refute those, don't connect her with a dangerous charlatan/heretic and say, "see, this is what happens when women are allowed to preach."  After all, the Prosperity Gospel's who's who is primarily populated by men, not women, and I wouldn't lump John MacArthur in with Joel Osteen just because they're both American men who preach.

7. To attack 'MeToo' as solely a guise of feminism, and not a legitimate concern, is allowing political concerns to distract the Church from a moral imperative.
Modern American feminism has issues when it comes to biblical morality, in particular regarding abortion, on this many within the Church would agree {Even if we can't agree on what those concerns are, nor the extent to which we should be concerned}.  However, to pretend that there is not a long overdue reckoning of sexual predators and sexists within the Church (as well as society as a whole) is massively short-sighted.  The Church must rid itself of a culture that protects sexual predators, that blames rape victims, and that is willing to treat men and women as anything other than equal before God.  The Church, as a whole, has committed grave sins in failing to police itself, in hiding its sins from law enforcement, and in treating the sexual/physical/verbal abuse of women and children as a secondary issue.  Unfortunately, this is not the first sign of a dismissive attitude toward the reality-check of the MeToo movement: Founders Ministries released a trailer for an upcoming documentary that showed images of rape survivor and victim's advocate Rachel Denhollander, lumping her in with those who, in the words of the producers of the film, were advocating a 'godless ideology'.  {This despite the fact that Rachel's testimony about how God has helped her overcome the abuse she suffered is entirely orthodox; her 'crime' was to be associated with the MeToo movement.  To read my rebuttal to the Founders Ministry trailer click here: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}. 

8. 'Go home' doesn't reflect the Biblical narrative.
The inclusion of the stories of prominent, and influential God-fearing women in the Bible are not a fluke.  The inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended that we hear the story of the prophetess Deborah whose courage exceeded that of Barak, of Mordecai's utilization of Esther to effect God's salvation of the Jews, of the crucial and amazing role of Mary in the birth and life of Jesus, of Jesus' commendation of Martha's willingness to sit with the men and learn from him while Mary worried about 'woman's work', and of the women who came to the tomb and first heard the glorious news of the resurrection while Jesus' hand-picked 11 male apostles were in hiding.  The bible certainly celebrates the role of wife and mother, but at the same time demonstrates a repeated emphasis on God's willingness to utilize women, along with men, to accomplish his will.  If God had wanted women confined to the home, caring solely for chores and children, he would have made that clear, but the biblical narrative itself hints at no such call for the sequestering of women.

9. Is the Great Commission only for men, or should everyone saved by Jesus share the Good News?
I've never heard anyone take the position that only men can share the Good News, so there must be some role for women in the various ministries of the Church.  Even if one accepts the strict complimentarianism of John MacArthur, that does not exclude women from having a vital role in the health of a local church and its outreach to the world.

10. The focus on the work of ordained ministers (and other public leadership roles) is forgetting the crucial role of the laity.
While the focus of this controversy is the very public role of Beth Moore, and John MacArthur's role as a pastor in rebuking her, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Church needs far more help than what is given by those whose job/vocation is ministry.  The Church needs the laity: men, women, and children, to support its ministry and help it accomplish the mission given to us by Jesus.  If a church reserves the specific role of pastor/elder to men only, it still needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation, and if a church open the role of pastor/elder to both men and women, that church also needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation.  The leadership of a church is very important, but let's not let a controversy like this distract our attention away from the need to develop disciples of Jesus Christ within the church.

The response of Max Lucado: Max Lucado responds to John MacArthur's women preacher comments: 'Bride of Christ is sighing' by Sheryl Lynn of The Christian Post

Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise

In a recent opinion piece in Christianity Today, Leah Payne and Aaron Griffith, highlight the unholy alliance that has led famous evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. to endorse the latest book by Paula White-Cain.  The theology espoused by Paula White-Cain has historically been anathema among evangelicals, but the appeal of Paul White's power, in particular her celebrity and close association with the President of the United States, have seemingly overshadowed any concerns about Paula White-Cain's personal history and Prosperity Gospel infused theology {9 Things You Should Know About Prosperity Gospel Preacher Paula White by The Gospel Coalition's Joe Carter}.  Before going on, read the full article, it is well worth it, I will interact with specific passages below: Paula White-Cain’s Evangelical Support Squad Isn’t as Surprising as It Seems

On the surface, White-Cain’s support among these conservative white Protestants is surprising. For one thing, she is a prominent prosperity preacher associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely connected group of Pentecostals and Charismatics. For decades, tongues-speaking, vision-reporting prosperity preachers like White-Cain have been a theological anathema to more traditional white evangelicals.  {The Prosperity Gospel has been making inroads for decades, inching closer and closer to being thought of as acceptable as its proponents' fame grows through their TV/online presence, book sales, and wealth from donations.  Yet, until the events described in the article, leaders like Franklin Graham would have never publicly associated themselves with those selling this Gospel-for-profit perversion.}

Before fundamentalist-modernist battle lines hardened in the 1920s, it was common to see theological liberals and conservatives sharing stages with one another at tent revivals. Conservative revivalists were willing to work with liberal Protestants if it meant that they could achieve their broader aim of preaching to more potential converts with the support of the local Christian community.
To be sure, the revival tent was big, but it still could be contested. For Billy Graham, his continuation of the evangelical pragmatist tradition in inviting Christians of all stripes—from Johnny Cash to the president of Union Theological Seminary—to support his crusades or sit on his revival platforms drew the ire of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, who saw this impulse as misguided theological capitulation. But Graham helped set the stage for later evangelicals to think creatively about how partnerships could widen their appeal.  {Here is the key fundamental difference between the actions of Billy Graham in previous years and those of Franklin Graham (and those of like mind) today: The purpose.  To what end, for what cause, was Billy Graham willing to work with those he disagreed with about theology?  For the sharing of the Gospel message and the saving of souls.  Not for political gain, not for power, certainly not for money, it was a cause about which the Apostle Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)  Should we work with anyone, even non-Christians, including Muslims (for example), on disaster relief or humanitarian aid?  Absolutely, for here we are not making common cause theologically, are not claiming to share a Gospel motivation or mission.  To save lives we ought to be willing to work with whomever is willing to offer no-strings-attached aid.  Should we work with other Christians, of other denominations, with whom we disagree on other issue, but agree upon the Gospel in those same areas, while including a Gospel message, praying, and worshiping together?  Absolutely, for here the common bond of the Gospel supersedes our disagreements.  To save souls we ought to be willing to work with anyone who affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Should we work with non-trinitarians, with those who deny the God/Man nature of Christ or his resurrection, whose Gospel is man-centered, and though it pays lip service to Jesus, is instead focused upon elevating us to earthly riches?  Should we embrace this false-Gospel for the sake of politics, wealth, or fame?  May God forbid it.  Nor can we work with those who embrace a false-gospel in an effort to share the Gospel, for what would we share?(Obviously, in the 3 questions above we would exclude working with those engaging in moral evil; i.e. we wouldn't accept food aid from terrorists, or Gospel preaching aid from pedophiles, that ought to go without saying, but lest anyone say, 'what about..?')

White-Cain frames her self-help efforts in the contractual language of the “hard” prosperity gospel, a term coined by historian Kate Bowler to denote certain ministers’ emphasis on the direct and specific returns that result from faith. In the words of an offer on White-Cain’s website, sow a $130 “Favor Seed” and reap a “Triple Favor” as money flows back to you. But it is not that different from the “soft” prosperity exhortations of other evangelicals, including many in the SBC, who claim that following biblical principles improves marriages, lowers anxiety, and creates extraordinary lives of success and significance.
Though there are innumerable evangelicals who would eschew prosperity language of any sort, a focus on the personal benefits of the faith is everywhere. Focus on the Family’s aesthetic is certainly different than White-Cain’s, but the organization clearly states that familial and marital thriving is available through adherence to biblical teaching. Likewise, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University claims that “biblically based, common-sense education and empowerment” will “give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.” Less overly contractual language perhaps, but health and wealth all the same. {Here is where this analysis ought to be especially sobering.  While James Dobson and Dave Ramsey have some critics, and none of our techniques/methods are beyond criticsm, this is a more fundamental question than that.  Has our comfort as an American Church with health and wealth grown so deep and so widespread that we don't even notice it anymore?  Has it seeped into the fabric of who we are as a Church in America so much that we expect health and wealth to be part of Christian discipleship?  The Church certainly has plenty of issues to be worried about, and many things that need to be corrected so that the work of the Kingdom of God can flourish, this question needs to be on that list.}

Evangelicals also are avid participants in celebrity-driven media culture. Like other Americans, evangelicals buy books, check Instagram, and attend conferences. And the drivers of all these media tend to be big names, authority figures who know how to communicate their signature messages effectively.
As a form of American stardom, evangelical celebrity culture is ruthlessly capitalist. One’s star rises and falls based on how many books are sold or where they are slotted in a conference lineup. Part of building a celebrity brand means creating cross promotions on media platforms and exploring unexpected partnerships to open up new markets. Each can open doors for the other. As writer Katelyn Beaty noted, “so much of the endorsement machine is about maintaining relationships, not giving an honest assessment of a written work.”...
And Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and another of White-Cain’s promoters, describes himself in precisely these market-driven terms, as a businessman who is to be evaluated by the financial health, growth, and notoriety his educational empire, not his theology. His promotion of White-Cain’s book can be interpreted as a logical follow-up to White-Cain’s presence (in support of her husband, Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain) at Liberty’s convocation in 2017. With her massive media presence (nearly 700,000 Twitter followers and counting), it is understandable that other evangelicals like Falwell (with around 75,500 Twitter followers) would see promotion of White-Cain’s work as a way to link their name with hers, benefitting both in the long run.
 {As damning as the thought that leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Robert Jeffress might be duped into not recognizing the Prosperity Gospel danger that Paul White represents, it is far more disconcerting to consider the alternative: they know it but don't care.  The allure of popularity, sales, and access to powerful people is too strong.  I would disagree strongly with someone who made such an alliance for the sake of political gain, such marriages always corrupt those who embrace them, but if any portion of that compromise is being driven by the greed for fame and money, the moral failure is far greater than simply one of being in error.}

For those who do not share her theological disposition, it is wishful thinking to pretend that she is not a major force within American evangelicalism. It is now Paula White-Cain’s world. The question is how we should live in it. {The conclusion of the Payne/Griffith article, one that reminds us that this issue isn't going away anytime soon.}

Conclusions:

1.  The Prosperity Gospel is anathema: The Gospel is about service for God, about selfless sacrifice in this life for the sake of the next, NOT about health, wealth, and fame here and now.
That the Church in America, even where the preaching and teaching remains orthodox, is infected with exceptionalism (i.e. God is for us more than other people, we're the special, chosen nation} and weakened by materialism, where the spiritual takes a back seat to the material, is now beyond doubt.  That we've grown comfortable with a lite-version of Prosperity doesn't make it any less dangerous.

2.  Any preacher who promises blessings from God in exchange for money is a charlatan who should be shunned no matter whether the theology that he/she is promoting is orthodox or not.
In this case, of course, the money seeking behavior is also coupled with deeply troubling theology.  I am well aware that Paula White-Cain's website contains an orthodox statement of beliefs under the heading, her beliefs, but video also exists of her denying the trinity and claiming that we are all little gods (reminiscent of the 'we will all be gods someday' heresy of Mormonism).  The theology is bad enough, couple together with a money-making scheme and Christian leaders ought to be putting up "DANGER" signs, not endorsing the latest book.

3.  Book sales, twitter followers, and appearances on TV are NOT an accurate measuring stick for who ought to be leading the Church.
You may perhaps already be aware of this, but the Apostle Paul wrote extensively to Timothy about the moral character, and lack of immoral behavior, required of those who would be called to lead the people of God.  Popularity is not on the list.

Additional material:

Jeffress Defends Endorsement of Paula White’s Book, But Admits He Hasn’t Read it “Word for Word” or Researched Her Theology by Julie Roys

Televangelist Paula White Hawks 'Resurrection Life' for $1,144 'Seed' by Leonardo Blair, Christian Post {An example of the absolute heresy of promising blessings to those who send you money, no better than the Papal Indulgences that infuriated Martin Luther}

Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore tweeted, “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Truth will set you free: the context of a timeless truth

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)  The Gospel of John contains many memorable phrases, including Jesus' powerful "I am" statements.  The idea that truth is capable of making people free has penetrated Western culture to the extent that the two ideas, freedom and truth, have become inextricably linked, especially in the light of the penchant of oppressive regions for propaganda and outright lies.  For examples of the cultural triumph of a linkage between freedom and truth and conversely oppression and lies, see George Orwell's 1984 , Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , or Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.  In their own way, each of those novels is championing the ideal of Truth (with a capital T) and warning of the danger of falsehood to society.  In this they are certainly correct, for no society or government founded upon, or maintained by, lies can long endure apart from oppression.  While true, and certainly beneficial to society, this was not the reason why Jesus said that truth would set people free.  The concerns of Jesus were far more immediate, and far more specific, than championing the idea of Truth (as good and honorable a cause as that is).

By the point in the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."  he has already declared, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35-48) and "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12, repeated in John 9:5) The Truth that Jesus was offering that would set those free who were willing to accept it, was that he did indeed come from the Father to warn them regarding their sins, and to offer them salvation by believing in him.  It was deliberately a very specific truth, embodied personally by Jesus, that had the power to set people free.  Free from what?  Not merely free from oppression, as wonderful as that is, but free from something far more universal and dangerous, free from slavery to sin.  As descendants of Abraham, and heirs to that Covenant, those who listened to Jesus believed that they were already free.  It was painfully true that they were not politically free, the presence of Roman troops in Jerusalem made that obvious, but they considered themselves to be morally and spiritually free as a people who endeavored to follow the Law of Moses.  They were wrong.  Jesus sought to shatter this false complacency by warning them, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did." (John 8:39)  Abraham believed God, and took steps to demonstrate that faith, even when difficult circumstances offered excuses to doubt God.  As a result, Genesis tells us, "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6, quoted by Paul in Romans 4:3,20-24 and Galatians 3:6 as well as by James in James 2:23).
Knowledge of the truth is not sufficient.  Humanity is exceedingly capable of ignoring the truth, of subverting it to our own desires, and of paying lip service to it while continuing on our own path.  Without a commitment, without allowing it to change one's behavior, truth alone is powerless.  While that is true in many areas (for example: the advice you receive from your doctor; it doesn't help you if you ignore it), it is supremely true regarding our relationship with God.  There are many people who know who Jesus was (and is), who are aware of his life, death, and resurrection, but for whom those truths have no discernible impact upon their lives.  Unless truth produces transformation, it fails. 
Which brings us back to Jesus.  Belief in Jesus is the truth that will set us free from our slavery to sin.  Trust in Jesus is the beginning of the path of righteous obedience to the will of God, and hope in Jesus is what will allow us to live our lives confident that his vicarious death and resurrection are the keys to God accepting us into the kingdom of heaven.  The Truth will certainly set us free, we just need to make sure that our journey begins with a very specific truth, belief in Jesus.