A Brief Word on God's Wrath by Leon Morris

"The general picture which the Old Testament gives us of God is of One who is by nature merciful, and who cannot be swayed by man's puny efforts. In the last resort forgiveness is always due to God's being what He is, and not to anything that man may do. Because God is God, He must react in the strongest manner to man's sin, and thus we reach the concept of the divine wrath. But because God is God, wrath cannot be the last word. 'The Lord is good; his mercy endureth for ever' (Ps. 100:5)." - p. 154, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd Revised Ed., Leon Morris

Rob Bell and the Two-Day-Old Fish

During a recent trip to Denver, Pastor Rob Bell made a brief stop at Denver Seminary. The seminary wanted to take such a rare opportunity to have a dialog with such an influential person in the Christian community. I wasn't able to go to the event, but I did get to listen to it online.

Now, I've written a little bit about Mr. Bell before, but having admittedly not read any of his books, I tried to be tentative and give him the benefit of the doubt. However, listening to him speak for 90 minutes was instructive, and I think I'm beginning to have a bit better understanding of his beliefs. I'm not going to go into everything I thought as I listened to the recording, but two things stood out to me:

1. Bell mentioned Jesus a lot, but not once did he mention the cross. (To be fair, he did mention "the resurrected Christ" once in passing, as he was making another point.) Bell's book is titled Love Wins; what bigger victory has love than the cross of Christ? Interestingly, whereas the Gospels devote 25% of their material to the events of the Passion Week, Bell did not see fit to mention the cross at all. In addition, he talked a great deal about his goal to share the hope he has with as many as he can. Yet after 90 minutes, I was not sure what his hope was actually in, other than "Jesus"--a concept he never bothered to define. Again, peddling a book called Love Wins, I find this remarkable.
2. Bell seems to give higher priority to experience than revelation. When asked to defend certain beliefs or statements, he was quick to move to personal stories as a means of justification. Yes, he knows a great deal about the Bible (whatever he might be, he is certainly not stupid), but his interpretation of scripture seemed to be obtained through the grid of experience, rather than interpreting experience through the grid of revelation. In other words, when experience and divine revelation collide, for Bell, experience always trumps.

The more I learn about Rob Bell, the more leery I am of his message. Like a two-day-old fish, something just smells funny. But I encourage you, if you have the time, to listen to the recording and come to your own conclusions.

Popularity Wins?

Rob Bell is coming out with a new book, Love Wins. If you haven't heard, many people are accusing him of endorsing universalism, the idea that everyone will eventually get to heaven. Others are defending him, saying that, like any good teacher, he is just raising the question. I'm not going to comment on this issue, but being familiar in general with his teachings and having seen a number of his videos, including the promo for Love Wins, I have another concern. I cannot say if this is correct or incorrect, but it's just how things seem to me.

It seems to me that Rob Bell wants to be "the popular kid." Allow me to explain: His videos are always on the cutting edge of culture. His teachings seem to stress themes like God's love, right actions and social justice--each with an emphasis on this life--but not so much themes like God's judgment in the life to come. (If he did stress the latter, well, there would be no uproar right now.) The clothes he wears look like they all came from the latest Gap catalog. And to top it off, he's kind of got that "I'm better than you" smirk on his face all the time. Now, I'm not saying that any of those things are necessarily bad--they all have their place. (Okay, maybe the last one is a bit irritating.) There's nothing wrong with making an engaging video. Striving for love, justice and righteousness in this life is important. And I really don't care much what anybody wears or how they choose to look, so long as there is a godly character beneath the surface. But taking his appearance as a whole, the themes he stresses (and doesn't) in his teaching, and given the enormous response his works have received, it seems as if he's more concerned with being (or staying) popular than being true to the faith.*

One Facebook comment I ran across about the Love Wins brouhaha lamented, "The real problem is that many 'biblical' pastors are out of touch with our culture and lack the skills that Bell has to reach a postmodern society." I can't deny that some pastors are out-of-touch with reality and the culture. But many more are engaging the culture around them--their neighborhood, their city, their county--and are faithfully doing so, without the popularity of a Rob Bell.

The bottom line is, God calls pastors to be faithful, not popular. If they do happen to be popular, then so much the better, but faithfulness always trumps popularity. In Bell's case, if he really is espousing universalism in his book, then it would seem that he is seeking the world's acceptance more than God's. (What better way to get people to like you than to state as God's spokesman that you can do whatever you want and you'll still get to go to heaven?) My own concern is that he has allowed the postmodern culture into his heart too much, and that he is too concerned with what people think of him (masked as "engaging the postmodern culture") than where he stands in relation to Truth. I hope for Bell's sake that I am greatly mistaken.

*Let me be clear: I am not trying to be mean to the guy. I'm not accusing him of heresy. I'm not even commenting about the clothes he chooses to wear. All I'm saying is that, for me, all outward appearances suggest that popularity is his main goal.

P.S.: In fairness to Mr. Bell, I am including links to two reviews of Love Wins, one pro and one con. If you are interested, I would encourage you to read them (or even the book itself!) and come to your own conclusions on this controversy.

"Pro" review: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
"Con" review: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

Excerpt from Life in the Spirit by Mother Teresa

"We have 53,000 lepers and yet never one has been sent away because we did not have. It is always there, though we have no salaries, no income, no nothing, we receive freely and give freely. This has been such a beautiful gift of God. In Calcutta alone we cope for 7,000 people every day and if one day we do not cook they do not eat. And this, one Friday morning Sister came and told me: 'Mother, Friday – Saturday, there is no food, we will have to tell the people we have nothing to give today or tomorrow.'"

"I had no words, I had nothing to say to her, but by nine o'clock the Government for some unknown reason closed all the schools, and all the bread that would have been given to the children was sent to us and our children and our 7,000 people ate bread and bread for two days. They had never eaten so much bread in their lives. Nobody in the whole city knew why the schools were closed, but I knew. I knew the delicate thoughtfulness of God – such a delicate love."

Pro-Choice is Anti-Woman

Below I have posted an excerpt from the Constructive Curmudgeon. The entire article is worth reading, regardless of your position on the role of women in the church, but I think all sides in the debate can agree with this:

11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.

Myth of the Modern Man

As many people come to the Bible, they bring with them a peculiar bias. It's one they probably don't even realize they have. Nevertheless, it's the starting point for a train of thought that casts doubt on the accuracy of Scripture and can lead one far from the path of God. I call it the Myth of the Modern Man.

It goes like this: Our modern society has mastered electricity, the combustible engine, canned foods, computer technology, the Internet, satellite television and many other advanced technologies. We've figured out human psychology to the extent that we've got it all documented in the DSM. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our DNA ancestry back hundreds of thousands of years. We no longer hunt and gather, engage in bartering or fight each other with pointy sticks (most of us, anyway). We are so much more advanced technologically and sociologically than other previous peoples that it follows that we must be vastly smarter than they were, too.

From this foundation proceeds the idea that the Bible just can't be right. After all, people back then thought that the gods controlled the weather and demons caused epilepsy. Since we who are vastly superior intellectually know those things can't be true, we have no reason to trust them to have gotten anything else right, either. Everyone knows that people don't get swallowed up by a fish and then vomited out three days later. There might have been a king named David, but most of what is written about him is legend, you see. Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he didn't really rise from the dead--these things just don't happen! Even though we are removed from the events of the Bible by many thousands of years more than the original authors, we second-guess them from our Modern throne and say, "But of course it didn't really happen like that."

A cursory examination of architectural and artistic history sheds light on the Myth of the Modern Man, however. The great pyramids, for example, are very large and intricate structures that are extremely precise in their layout. They still rank among the wonders of the world. They were made by humans long ago without the aide of computers, machines or even metal tools. Try making a pyramid using only your brain and a stone hammer--not so easy, is it? Much the same can be said for Stonehenge and many of the buildings erected by early peoples of the Americas. Machu Picchu's architects created an intricate system to provide the location with water from a nearby spring, and they devised an underground drainage system to prevent the torrential rains from washing the whole place off the mountaintop--a system which has been working quite well for the last 600 years. Artistically speaking, I will never forget an example I saw at a museum in Kansas City a few years ago. Archaeologists had found a piece of jade which had been fashioned into a 6" cube and had a 1" hole drilled through its center. Jade is a material that is harder than diamonds, yet someone thousands of years ago was able to drill a hole through six inches of the stuff (for merely aesthetic reasons, nonetheless!). To this day, no one knows how the feat was accomplished.

The examples go on and on, but the point is clear: Earlier peoples were just as smart and ingenuous as we are. They mastered the materials of their day (stone, iron, etc) and created wonderful and lasting works without the aid of our modern contrivances. They created such fundamental things as writing and philosophy, which are the building blocks of our own society. Their only tools were whatever they could find around them and their wits, and they used them skillfully. These were smart people. And if they were able to do all of this, does it not follow that they could perceive events just as well as we? And is not the corollary also true that they could sniff out a fishy story just as well as we?

And yet, unlike us, the early biblical writers did believe the stories they heard and documented. The stories made sense to them; something about them rang true. Maybe they even had a grandfather who told them what it was like to serve King David. Maybe they were well aware of a type of aquatic animal that could swallow a man whole. Maybe they knew some of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. Maybe things did happen differently and for different reasons in another time and another place.

So the next time you are tempted to read the Bible and ask, "Did it really happen like that?" think about living without the benefits of modern technology. How long would you last? How observant would you have to be to completely sustain yourself and your family using only what you could hunt, trade or grow from the land? How long would you last in such an environment if you believed everything anybody told you? The answers to these questions might persuade you that those folks might have indeed known and recorded what really happened.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

Look Who's Talking Now, or Thoughts on Leviticus

I'm currently reading through that great and exciting tome, the book of Leviticus. What a joy it is indeed! In all seriousness, many people get bogged down when they reach this book. How many people (myself included) have had their "read through the Bible" campaign halted when they reach this seemingly dry, boring and utterly inapplicable book? Why is it still even in the Bible at all, we surely wonder. This time 'round, though, I have been reading Leviticus through a different lens, and although it cannot take all of the dry, technical writing out of the book, it has been teaching me about God--knowledge that is well worth the work.

What is this lens, this magic magnifying glass through which I am observing the text? Perhaps it is best expressed through the title of Francis Schaeffer's book He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Most people in the Ancient Near East (ANE) worshiped local gods, who were represented by idols. These idols were carved by the hands of men. They did not speak; they had no power. They were, in reality, nothing at all. Yet a group of former slaves from Egypt do not need idols carved by men. They don't need a silent representation of God; they hear His very voice. In the ANE, this is unheard of (pardon the wordplay)! What's more, this God is very, very powerful. He spoke the universe into existence, and now He speaks to them personally. He provides structure and order to their fledgling country. He describes in painstaking detail how to build the tabernacle, how to construct the priests' garb, and how and when to make sacrifices and have feasts. He gives them a civil law code, so they can know how to act, and a dietary law code, so they can know what to eat (quite a helpful thing in an age without refrigeration!). The maker of the universe condescends to talk to a rag-tag group called Israel, and even goes so far as to help them set up their government and cult, so that they might be an established nation.

Is Leviticus dry? Unless you enjoy reading blueprints and law textbooks, yes. Is it boring? When you remember that God is doing most of the speaking, it becomes much less boring. Is it inapplicable today? God is shown to be personal and to desire orderly worship. Furthermore, He wants our total devotion to Himself in all areas of life--civil, religious, even in what (or how) we eat! These truths alone will take a lifetime (and then some) to apply. The bottom line? Don't discount this admittedly hard-to-read yet enormously important book of Scripture. After all, God is there, He is not silent, and he wants to speak to you and me--even through Leviticus.

The New American Commentary: Judges by Daniel Block

"No book in the Old Testament offers the modern church as telling a mirror as this book." So ends Daniel Block's New American Commentary on Judges.* One might very well add, "The book is a telling mirror of American society as a whole." Block takes a biblical book describing events that took place 3,000 years ago and shows how relevant they still are through his solid exegesis of the text.

Throughout his commentary, Block reviews and expounds upon the continual decline of Israel after they entered the Promised Land, during the time of the shofetim (traditionally translated "judges," but Block uses the more technically correct term "tribal leaders"). Block traces two main themes of of Judges throughout his commentary. The first is the gradual Canaanization of Israel. In every episode, Israel and her shofetim take on more and more of the characteristics and culture of the surrounding peoples (the Canaanites), which of course is in direct disobedience of God's original command to them to completely and utterly destroy the native peoples. By the end of the book, the only people Israel attempts to destroy in this manner is the tribe of Benjamin--their own brothers and sisters! Block shows that this is the dramatic effect of acquiescence and indeed full acceptance of a sinful culture. The second main theme Block traces throughout the book is God's grace. Israel and her leaders follow and disobey the laws of God in whatever manner is most convenient for them at the moment. Although they cry out to God on multiple occasions, it is always a cry for help and never a cry of repentance. Every judge, save two (Othniel and Deborah), are shown to be poor leaders. And yet God continually saves them from destruction! As Block mentions several times, God is more concerned with redeeming his people than they are!

There are several other important topics that Block tackles in his commentary, not the least of which is the narrator's repeated observation that "there was no king in Israel." For those discussions, I would refer you to the commentary itself, which I felt was a good resource overall. Block provides the reader with the usual discussions of grammar, history and so forth that one expects in a quality commentary. I appreciated, too, how he wove the aforementioned themes together to provide his commentary and the biblical book with a good and memorable flow. On the other hand, I felt his "theological and practical implications" sections were rather weak. I would have liked to have seen some of these implications more drawn out, since Judges is so incredibly apropos to today's culture (and indeed, it was all too easy for this reader to find his own implications). I also must sadly admit that the commentary suffered from bad proofing. I have never seen so many basic grammar and punctuation errors in a published book. (I even found some of the Hebrew transliterations to be incorrect!) All in all, though, these negatives did not detract from the overall quality and value of Block's commentary, and it has become a welcome addition to my personal library.

*Note: The volume also includes a separate commentary on Ruth, which I have not yet read.

Ability and Desire: An Article Review

In my last post, I discussed an article from the (now) penultimate issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) on biblical literacy of Victorian Britain and present-day America. A few short pages later, I discovered another stellar article that deserves comment, one that deals with the oh-so-contentious area of human free will.

The article, entitled “Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility” and authored by Scott C. Warren, provided me with a valuable tool to use in my own theological journey. For quite some time now, I have been wrestling with the Calvinist/Arminian debate. To put it simply, I can see both sides of the argument. God is sovereign, and no one comes to Him except those that are drawn by Him (Calvinism). At the same time, sinners are held morally responsible for rejecting God, which implies that they had the freedom to choose this route (Arminianism). (I don't buy the hyper-Calvinist idea of double predestination, and I don't think John Calvin would, either.) But how do these two truths intersect? How does one marry the ideas of divine sovereignty and human free will in a logical, non-contradictory way? While I don't expect to resolve this tension completely in my lifetime, Mr. Warren provided me with an answer to a piece of the puzzle.

What the author did was to look at the word "freedom." What does freedom really mean? To answer that question, he draws a diagram. The outer perimeter of the diagram is a box labeled "all conceivable actions." That is, the box represents anything you might think that a person could do in any situation. Inside of the box is a circle representing those things which are actually actionable--that is, what a person has the ability to do in a certain situation. A second circle inside the box represents those things that a person desires to do--what he or she would like to do in a given situation. Finally, the two circles form a simple Vinn diagram, and the overlapping segment is where free actions reside. To make a long explanation simple, Warren defines freedom as "the ability to do what you desire to do." Freedom is thus comprised of ability and desire.

This turns out to be an extremely important distinction that throughout history and the present has been overlooked. But it helps to explain the biblical data very well. Take, for example, Hebrews 6:18, which states that "it is impossible for God to lie." Really? Something is impossible for an omnipotent being? Couldn't God tell a lie if he wanted to? And that is precisely Warren's point: God would not want to lie. An omnipotent deity may very well have the ability to lie, but a good God would not have the desire to lie. To lie would fall so far outside of God's desires that it may be referred to as impossible. In the same way, Jesus, who was fully man, was really tempted to sin and therefore had that ability, but being fully divine, did not have the desire to sin. Therefore, we can agree with Millard Erickson's words, "[Christ] could have sinned, but it is certain that he would not" (italics original).

This idea also works with human freedom. The author argues that humans in their natural state have the ability to repent of their sins and turn to God, but they do not possess the desire to do so. They are free to choose to follow or reject God, but they freely choose to reject him 100% of the time. Warren aptly sums it up when he writes, "The essential problem is not that sinners cannot do what they must, but that they will not do what they can."*

How, then does one change her inmost desire? How does a sinner change his propensity to sin? He doesn't--God alone can do this. Thus in Warren's ordo salutis, regeneration precedes acceptance of salvation. In other words, men and women freely act on their natural desire to reject God until God changes their desires, at which time they act freely to accept His rule. The author contends, and I agree, that without regeneration, a person cannot desire to repent. Thus even though she has the ability to repent, she would never act on it. Thus the certainty of sin and the justice of God's judgment of sinners are harmonized.

There are many more nuances to ponder and resolve (at least in my own mind) in the Calvinism/Arminian debate, enough to keep me busy for the foreseeable future. But thanks to a scholarly article in an obscure (for some) academic journal, I have received a nugget of wisdom that puts one more question to rest.

*In other words, if sinners were judged because they did not repent--and this because they could not repent--God would be unjust. But if sinners could reorient their own hearts toward God in their own strength--that is, if they themselves could obtain the desire to repent--there would be no need for grace.

Why 19th-Century Britain Challenges Me

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unexpected places. I received the latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in early December and saw an article entitled "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own." Interesting, I thought. I'll get to learn some history. Instead, I learned about myself.

The author, Timothy Larsen, discusses the basic attitude of 19th-century Britain concerning the Bible and the reading thereof, and then compares them to 21st-century America. What he found is alarming.

Victorian Age Britain:

• "Even the scientist T.H. Huxley, the original agnostic who wrote polemical works attacking the Scriptures, insisted on 'the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education.'"
• Catherine Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had read the Bible in its entirety eight times by the age of twelve.
• Florence Nightingale, who denied that the Bible was special revelation, nevertheless "read it earnestly every day, both by herself and aloud to her servants."
• "Obviously figures such as [the ones mentioned above] represent best practice, but the point is that Victorians across the denominational and theological spectrum agreed that this [voracious and regular (read: daily) Bible reading] was best practice, and there was a mass culture of aspiring to attain it across the traditions."

Current Day America:

• In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts discovered that 43.4% of adults had not read a single book (much less the Bible!) in the entire previous year.
• "Most Americans now cannot name the first book of the Bible and half cannot name even one of the four Gospels."
• And finally, a personal quotation from me: "What percentage of people think that the axiom 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' was originated by Abraham Lincoln?" (Hint: Read Mark 3)

The article really hit home for me. It made me think about my own Bible reading habits. What I realized was that while I am academically familiar with scripture, having studied it in the classroom for many years, I was not as personally familiar with it as I should be. Even my own Bible reading was focused on studying various biblical books, and really diving deep. While this is a good habit, and one which I have not dropped, I was neglecting the broad, surveying reading that allows familiarity over time (and a more developed matrix for those deep dives). It is important to note, this was not an exercise in self-guilt, but rather a realization that I could be doing better. (Also, I didn't like the idea of being upstaged by a twelve-year-old girl!)

Because of this article, I have changed my own personal reading habits. I now carve out time to read the Bible every day, with the goal of reading it through multiple times this year (a feat accomplished by reading just 15-20 minutes a day). I still keep up on my other reading, too, but now I am prioritizing differently. I'm finding that I look forward to it, too. I'm beginning to engage with the story lines and connect with the characters. In short, I'm enjoying it.*

I would encourage you, then, to dust off that Bible and read it--purposefully, chapters and books at a time, not randomly, verses here and there--not as a guilt-ridden duty, but as a joyous opportunity. Don't try to understand everything the first time through, either, but remember that with discipline, you will have many more opportunities to increase your understanding. With this mindset, you just might be unexpectedly surprised. I know I have been.

*And I'm watching less TV--and added bonus!

The Conservative Bible Project

I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. If you haven't figured out yet, I am definitely a political conservative. You might even think that I have some wacky views (I do), but this is just plain bizarre.

I'm referring to the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). Run by a man named Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schafly), the CBP "is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions." Schlafly argues that professors are an incredibly liberal bunch (politically, not theologically), and since they are doing all of the Bible translating, then of course our English translations are filled with liberal propagandist translations. And of what are these sins against the original text comprised? The CBP lists 10 guidelines upon which a "fully conservative translation" of the Bible should rest, and which no English translation today meets. I will list them exactly as they are presented on the CBP website and offer up some commentary in red after each guideline.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

This has to do with versions translating "fishers of men" as "fishers of people" and using "laborer" rather than "volunteer." Never mind that "men" in the Greek New Testament usually refers to males and females both, or that the word for "laborer" comes from the root word meaning "to work," not "to volunteer." And apparently paraphrases (e.g. The Message) and word-for-word translations (e.g. NASB) are inherently liberal...somehow.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

Okay, I get that there has been a backlash against gender inclusive language, and some people don't like it. That's fine. There is certainly room for debate on that issue. However, I'm not sure what "other feminist distortions" they are talking about, nor have I ever heard of the NIV deleting references to unborn children. Granted, I only have a master's degree in biblical studies. Maybe someone with more gravitas could enlighten me?

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

The fact of the matter is, if you want to write something that most people will understand, you have to write at around an eighth-grade level. In any case, that's more formal education than the biblical writers had, and they come across as pretty erudite.

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

I don't even know what they are talking about on this one.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So ancient Israelites sought the will of God by going to Vegas? Seriously. The Roman guards did gamble for Jesus' clothes by casting lots, but lots were cast for other reasons than attempting to make a quick denarius or two--see Jonah 1:7, for example.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

No translation I have read does this. People have decided to interpret such passages in ways that deny or downplay the reality of Hell and Satan, but the words are still in the text.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that none of Jesus' parables is first and foremost about establishing a free market system. There may be elements of his parables that do support the free market, but these should be drawn out in exegesis, not during translation.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

There are indeed passages of scripture that were added by early scribes. These are clearly indicated as such in modern translations. They are kept in the text due to their historical importance. See John 7:53-8:11.

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

I don't have a clue as to what they are talking about here.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Liberal wordiness? I'm beginning to think this is a practical joke. Oh, and a word about "Lord" is in order. Lord is ba'al in Hebrew and kurios in Greek. LORD is a gloss of Yahweh, which is God's name. Jehovah is a later corruption of Yahweh. Lord God is a gloss of Yahweh Elohim, "Yahweh God" in Hebrew. Given the several different Greek and Hebrew terms, using the single English term "Lord" for each of these would be...an unnecessary ambiguity.

The bottom line is, this seems to be a group of people trying to make the Bible support a particular political view--modern American conservatism. I think also that the CBP is confusing what the text says with how people have interpreted the text. In any event, I have serious suspicions about this project or any other that attempts to conform the Word of God to their own preconceived notions. Last I checked, the opposite should be true.

Does God Punish His People?

As you read through the book of Judges (and indeed much of the Old Testament), you will notice a theme: Israel follows God. Israel abandons God. God punishes Israel. Israel returns to God. Israel abandons God again. God punishes Israel again. And so on. This is the dance between God and His people that weaves its way through the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many people, especially those antagonistic toward Christianity, have dwelled far too much on the “punishment” portion of the cycle. In so doing, God is seen as a capricious master who delights in tormenting those He “loves” when they have even the slightest slip-up. But is this really the case? Can God be so cruel? Or perhaps is there something else going on here?

I think there is something else going on here, and in order to see it, we have to look at the idea of covenants. Covenants were quite common in the Ancient Near East, so it is no surprise that they show up in the Bible. A covenant is simply a formal agreement or promise. Usually covenants are made between a stronger and a weaker party (called the suzerain and vassal, respectively). For instance, a king might make a covenant with his subjects in which he promises to protect them as long as they pay their taxes, volunteer for the army and don’t cause trouble. In the biblical context, we see many different covenants that God makes with His people. One of these covenants occurs in Joshua 24. Under Joshua’s command, the people have entered into Canaan and have driven out many (though not all) of the people there. At the end of the book, God reminds Israel that He took them out of slavery in Egypt, guided them through the wilderness and gave them possession of the Promised Land. This is the backdrop for the covenant; God has protected and guided the Israelites faithfully. Then God, taking the role of suzerain, tells His vassals what He expects from them: “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD” (Josh 24:14). This, to me, is a pretty fair deal: Yahweh will continue to protect and provide for Israel, but they must serve and revere Him in return. It’s nothing different than any king would ask of his people. But what if the people don’t hold up their end of the deal? “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you” (24:20). The consequences of breaking the covenant are given at the outset: God will withdraw His protection and in fact bring disaster on Israel. He is letting Israel know ahead of time what He will do if they choose to violate the covenant.

My wife and I are currently taking a class on Love and Logic. Love and Logic is a method of parenting wherein the goal is to raise children who can think on their own, make wise decisions and generally contribute to society. One method that L&L teaches is to make enforceable statements. In other words, when a child misbehaves, don’t tell them what to do; instead, say what you will do. For instance, if a child is whining, a parent might respond, “I am happy to listen to people who can speak in a normal tone of voice.” L&L says this is a better response than “stop whining!” because a parent cannot control if his or her child whines. A parent can control how he or she responds to whining.

This is precisely what happens in the book of Judges. God has laid out His covenant with Israel in Joshua 24. God will protect and provide for Israel, and Israel will serve God. If Israel chooses not to serve God, then God makes the enforceable statement, “[I] will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you.” God knows that He cannot control humans. He didn’t make them to be controlled; he made them to love Him, and of course love is meaningless without the option not to love. In Judges, Israel decides to take the latter option: Israel chooses not to love God.

This brings me to the question, does God punish His people? I think punish is not the right word. In L&L, as a parent I am not punishing my child for disobeying me; rather, I am allowing him to experience the natural consequences of his choice. It is my duty as a parent to make sure that those consequences are uncomfortable for him at times. Furthermore, I don’t parent in this way because I am cruel—I parent in this way because I love my son! Consequences are a very real part of life, and he needs to learn about and experience them under the careful eye of mom and dad before he gets out on his own and it’s too late. In the same way, I don’t see God as punishing the Israelites in Judges; rather, he is acting on his own enforceable statement. Israel knew what would happen if they chose to forsake God, and they did it anyway. As a good parent, God allowed the natural consequences to happen, and he made things uncomfortable for His children at times. He did this because He loved them.

How do I know He loved them? Take a closer look at Joshua 24:20: “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” Did God bring disaster on Israel in the book of Judges? Numerous times. Did He make an end of them? No. In His grace, time and time again God raised up judges to deliver Israel from bondage and bring them peace. When Israel cried out for help in the midst of a situation of their own making, God had compassion and saved them.

And this compassion carries over into our covenant with Him, the covenant of the cross. We are all in a lethal mess, one we made ourselves by choosing to forsake God. God allows us to experience the natural consequences of our decision, and sometimes it can be quite uncomfortable. But in His grace, He sent His Son to die on the cross, to take our mess upon Himself, if only we will cry out to Him. When we do cry out to Him and accept His grace, not only does He take those consequences upon Himself, but He goes so far as to empower us to fulfill our end of the covenant. He gives us what Israel lacked—the gift of the Spirit.

Does God punish His people? I don't think so. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Instead, He shows grace time and time again. In Judges, God raised up human deliverers. With Christ's work, we are now delivered and empowered. If that is God's idea of punishment, I'll take all He's got!

And Yet...

That same night the LORD said to [Gideon], “Take the second bull from your father’s herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.”
So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime. In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! They asked each other, “Who did this?” When they carefully investigated, they were told, “Gideon son of Joash did it.” The men of the town demanded of Joash, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.”
But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.”
So that day they called Gideon “Jerub-Baal,” saying, “Let Baal contend with him,” because he broke down Baal’s altar. – Judges 6:25-32

God had called Gideon to deliver the Israelites from the oppression of the Midianites. Israel had cried out to God in anguish for help, and soon, Gideon would provide it to them. He would route a seemingly infinite Midian army with a scant 300 men, delivering his fellow countrymen in God’s strength. But who were Gideon’s countrymen? What was Israel like? Who are these people on whose behalf YHWH himself fought through Gideon?

Before Gideon’s famous fight, God asked him to do some “prep work.” God told Gideon to desecrate his own father’s place of worship—the same place he himself worshiped as a child, no doubt. On God’s orders, Gideon killed his father’s best bull, destroyed his Baal altar and sacrificed the animal to YHWH using the Asherah pole as fuel for the fire. There is really no more blatant religious commentary one can make than that! “YHWH is God; Baal and Asherah his consort are destroyed in his presence! Their holy places are worthless scraps of kindling, only useful to be burned!” If YHWH was to save Israel, they needed to be reminded that He was in charge.

How do the Israelites react to this—the same men who had cried out to God in anguish for help? They are filled with rage. They see their holy places desecrated and destroyed, and they demand a hefty revenge—the blood of Gideon! The idolatrous Israelites demand death for the “criminal” Gideon, when in fact it is the two-faced Baal worshipers whom God should have pronounced guilty of the capital-offense crime of putting another god before Him! Israel has become a completely pagan nation—incensed that their idols have been struck down but uncaring that they have forsaken the one true God—whom they had actually had the audacity to petition for help!

And yet God still delivers them!

Is any culture, then, so far gone that God is not willing to deliver the people, if only they would cry out?

The Case for Intelligent Design

Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!

Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.

As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.

Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?

Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:

Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:

Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.

The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.

Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.

Let's look at a few more examples.

DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.

Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.

These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:

The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*

Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.

We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.

At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:

*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.

How Difficult the Challenge

Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. For he says,

"In the time of my favor I heard you,

and in the day of salvation I helped you."

I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2; italics added (NIV)

The Shack: A Book Review

I like to tell people that I read boring books. They’re not actually boring, of course (far from it); they’re just highly specialized. Let’s face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master’s degree in biblical studies, it’s only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read “boring” commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I’m curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest “must read”—The Shack by William P. Young.

After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don’t really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter’s murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young’s portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.

Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young’s work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.

Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young’s portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God’s three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons’ relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity—each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are “above” or “below” others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.

Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection—all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus’ emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn’t pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.

Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young’s lax view of Christian duty—or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus’ statement, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).

Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack’s daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, “Every knee will bow before me,” as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies (“so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God”). While I do not wish to underestimate God’s grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.

In the end, William P. Young’s The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, “Don’t believe everything you read.”

Why the Bible is Still Relevant Today

Theological and Practical Implications of Judges 3:7-11

...When people abandon Yahweh in favor of any other allegiance, they absolve him of any obligation to them. In fact, they render him their enemy and may expect his judgment. On the other hand, when an individual who has been called by God into his service challenges the forces of evil and darkness in his [God's] power, the hosts of heaven and earth are dethroned. Herein lies the hope for the moribund church today. In the words of Yahweh himself, through his prophet Zechariah, victories are won "not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zech 4:6).

NAC: Judges, Ruth by Daniel Block, pp. 155-6.

The Question

I sometimes listen to local pastor Gino Geraci (local pastor and radio talk-show host) on the way home from work. I have to say, when it comes to the Bible and religion, the man knows his stuff. Most of the time I agree with what he says, but two days ago I had to take issue with him, albeit on a minor point. But, being a seminary grad, minor points are my specialty!

He fielded a question from a caller on the ending of Mark. If you turn to Mark 16, you will find that, after verse 8, the NIV states, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The caller was curious about Gino's thoughts on what is the true ending of Mark. Gino did a good job explaining the issue, citing evidence from all sides of the debate along the way. But then he asked the caller, "What happens if Mark ends with 16:8?", to which the caller responded, "It just doesn't make sense." Gino agreed. I disagree.

Mark 16:8 reads, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." The women had just seen a young man in a white robe (an angel) who had told them of Jesus' resurrection and had given them explicit instructions to go and tell this incredible news. What did they do instead? The exact opposite--they fled and kept their mouths shut. Now if you think about the immediate context, no, it doesn't make sense for Mark to end this way. But what was Mark trying to communicate here? I think he is ending his story with a hanging question for a reason. All throughout his gospel, we learn of this extraordinary man who claims to be God. He performs miracles, heals the sick, feeds the masses, and he even claims to forgive sins! He performs actions that fulfill Old Testament messianic prophecies, he identifies and equates himself with God, he winds up on a cross, yet his tomb is found to be empty. The reader takes part in this journey for 16 chapters, and Mark hopes that by this time he has fashioned a new disciple for the kingdom. But there is one question that remains, and it deals with identification. For the reader who believes, with whom will he or she identify? Will I go and tell, or will I flee and keep quiet? This is the same question that all believers must answer, often on a daily basis. Will I obey the young man's command, or will I follow the example of the three women at the tomb? This is why ending Mark's gospel at 16:8 makes perfect sense. The shorter ending forces the reader to look within, to answer the hanging question for his or her own life. It is really the question, the answer to which is the foundation for all else: What will you do with the message of Christ?

Christianity Without Church?

Why does organized religion matter? Isn't faith a private, personal, subjective thing, after all? It's a relationship with Jesus, so who cares about getting all gussied up and driving to a building every Sunday morning? This is the kind of thinking Kevin DeYoung examines in a Christianity Today interview about his new book, Why We Love the Church.

DeYoung points out that while the term church can refer to believers in general, two Christians meeting at Starbucks does not constitute a true church, i.e. a defined local community of believers. Why not? DeYoung says that the church as an institution has a structured litugry (teaching, singing, praying, ordinances) and offices (pastor/elder/bishop and deacon/deaconess). This is another important meaning of the word ekklesia. Coming together in a regular, organized manner is essential, he says, to have a lasting impact. (It's also commanded of us in Heb. 10:25.) Furthermore, he claims that many of those who care decrying the necessity of an organized church are, quite simply, immature in the faith. I tend to agree with this assessment. Organization, structure and even routine are extremely necessary for Christians. Let me explain.

Imagine that a group of Christians decided they were no longer going to celebrate Christmas by purchasing gifts, decorating, caroling, seeing family, etc. After all, December 25 isn't really Jesus' birthday, and we all just do the same things over and over again, year after year. Besides, what do any of those things have to do with one's relationship to Christ? They're just external trappings, so it is asserted. This, of course, is missing the point. All of those activities are part of the tradition of Christmas. Giving gifts reminds us of Christ's ultimate gift. Family get togethers provide a structured, planned time of fellowship with kin, something we need to stay connected to one another for a lifetime. And perhaps this is the only time each year when Luke 1-2 is read.

Tradition, organization and structure allow for remembering, learning and growth opportunities over the long term. There is certainly a place for spontaneous meetings over coffee, but this alone will not contribute to lasting growth. Fellowship, teaching, congregational singing and prayer are all part of the essential dynamic called the local church, the involvement in which is expected by all beleivers. One should question its necessity ony with great care.