Some Links about “The Shack”

“Uh huh. That Shack book! I knew that guy was a heretic!” Whoa there, Kemosabe. I haven’t even read the book. But one thing I am serious about is making sure that proper information about a subject finds its way to daylight. USA Today did an article on the author Paul Young a few days back. You can read it here. Wayne Jacobsen, an author and minister, published the book (Windblown Media) and has some wonderful books himself. Wayne’s books have personally changed my life. He answers questions about the controversy surrounding the book at his blog here. Have fun!

And please don’t comment about how this book is the last sign of the apostasy. As far as I’m concerned, any book Mark Driscoll hates has got to be good…

Update: I read ”The Shack” a few weeks later and commented on it from a theological perspective here.

HWJV: How Would Jesus Vote?

So, what do you do if you’ve posted the most controversial blog on WordPress? You top it by posting something more insane!

Beth and I were talking with a friend about this topic the other day and it made me think…what would determine Jesus’s voting record? Luckily, he gave us a great example in the Bible. The issue was divorce. Why divorce? Because it represents much about the issues facing our nation today: it was an area where civil legislation influenced morality, it spoke to the state of financial and material provision of Israel’s citizens, and it also impacted the livelihood of women and children. So, everything from our medicare issues to social security to domestic policy to abortion are thematically represented in the debate in some way. It was also a political “hot topic” when Jesus addressed it.

In Matthew 5 and 19 (and in Mark 10), Jesus addresses the topic of divorce. But not in the way that we have been taught in most churches. For most, marital infidelity is the only  reason that someone should divorce their spouse. Any remarriage is essentially considered adultery. That’s what Jesus said in 19:9, right? Well, not exactly. Jewish law at the time of Jesus permitted divorce for four reasons. Scholars have determined that by the Rabinical tradition of Jesus’s time, these four reasons for divorce had been established and were relatively unquestioned. And that’s why Jesus didn’t address three of them. They were: childlessness (after ten years), material neglect, emotional neglect, and unfaithfulness. The Rabbis cited these verses in support: Genesis 1:28 (childlessness), Exodus 21:10-11 (material neglect), and Deuteronomy 24:1 (adultery). They also developed emotional neglect as a symptom of material neglect which included conjugal rights, cruelty, and humiliation (m. Ketub. 5.6-7, 7.2-5). But it was adultery that had everyone’s attention during Jesus’s time.

There were two groups within the Pharisee camp: the conservative Shammai and the liberal Hillelites. Using Deuteronomy 24:1, the school of Shammai held to a conservative literal interpretation – the divorce could occur upon the knowledge of an “indecent matter” which they interpreted as infidelity. The school of Hillel reversed the words, however, calling for divorce upon “any matter of indecency.” This included any behavior deemed improper by the husband: what the Rabbis would clarify as being any time a wife “did not find favor in [the husband's] eyes.” Now, that’s a different story – women were defenseless against the “any matter” divorce decree. And that’s when Jesus stepped in.

The passages in Matthew and Mark are specifically addressing this “hot topic” (along with the issue of divorce certificates) – it was what everyone was talking about and they wanted Jesus to give his opinion as well. So, he did. In Matthew 19:1, Jesus is asked: “Is it acceptable for a man to divorce his wife for any matter?” This is not a general question – it pertains specifically to the current state of an area of public policy. So specific in fact that it would be synonymous with Jesus commenting not just on abortion, but on partial-birth abortion – a specific issue within a larger one. Or for Jesus to comment specifically on how to fund social security rather than if social security is necessary. So, that specific issue within the larger one is the context and Jesus’s response is to address the “any matter” divorce.

His answer is pretty clear in verse 9: “anyone who divorces his wife, except for infidelity, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Within the context, Jesus is saying that Deuteronomy 24:1 should be translated “indecent matter (adultery)” rather than the more liberal interpretation of “any matter of indecency.” He chose the answer that promoted family security and protected women. Divorce should not occur for any reason. But at the same time Jesus did not dismiss the other legitimate reasons for divorce – childlessness, emotional neglect, and material neglect – reasons that would be considered liberal by many conservative Christians today. Jesus would not have been okay with the material neglect of a family of emotional abuse. During that time, though the childlessness reason was still available, divorce rarely occured for that reason. And the divorce rate during the Greco-Roman period was comparable to our’s today, particularly among the upper classes.

So what does this have to do with how Jesus would vote? Everything, actually. He didn’t vote along party lines. In the illustrious words of my wife, “Jesus voted the issues.” He went with the conservatives in this case, but he went with the the liberal Hillelites at other times. He went with the Essenes at Passover – something contrary to mainstream Judaism. So was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian? He was none. He approached each issue by saying, “Which stance reflects the heart of God and his love for his children?” His answer determined whether he was “liberal” or “conservative.” And that should tell you something – if he was willing to reject labels, we should do the same. We should vote the issues from our heart. And if you’re a Christian, you should vote each issue asking the same question Jesus did. “Which stance reflects the heart of God?”

One more thing. The church has been incredibly versatile in beating up divorced people. As you can tell from the reasons above, material and emotional neglect as well as physical cruelty were reasons for divorce in Jesus’s day. So, if you have been divorced for one of those reasons, then don’t beat yourself up about it. Jesus would have allowed your divorce. But Jesus also said that it is because of the hardness of our own hearts that we choose divorce over reconciliation. Now, Christians often apply this to the female who, after years of emotional abuse, can’t take it anymore. But I think Jesus was speaking to the spouse (usually male)who was giving the abuse. And that’s something worth considering. In the end divorce occurs when neither person treats the other like they are made in the image of God. But if Jesus wouldn’t comdemn you, why should his followers?

My point is this. Though I’m not into politics, I am into making decisions that support what I believe to be the heart of God. Decisions that honor people. Decisions that support goodness and life. So, as I head to the polls, I’ll be thinking, “HWJV?” I’m not sure which political party that will align me with. But as long as I vote my heart I think I’ll be okay.

A Different Take on Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival

I finally got the chance to watch some of the Lakeland Revival on GodTV. I actually get that channel but haven’t tuned into any religious networks in months. I can’t stand ‘em. Who knew? So I watched about two hours tonight. Now, I’ve personally been around revivals and charismatic movements all my life. I have been in meetings for the original Vineyard movement, offshoots of the “Toronto Blessing,” the “Brownsville Revival,” and the like. I’ve even seen people experience “holy laughter.” So, what I saw going on in Lakeland is not particularly new – in fact, it reminded me a lot of the Toronto movement.

Most of the blogs I’ve encountered on this subject are by self-proclaimed doctrine police: terribly boorish people content to surf the globe protecting Jesus from false apostles and the fleecing of the sheep. They constantly cite Bentley’s lack of educational credentials and point out his angelology and metaphorical use of scripture. And he certainly uses a lot of prophetic terminology that would be lost on someone who had never been introduced to it. And, yeah, some of the things he says are scripturally off base. But I’ve got news for you: Bentley doesn’t care. And no one into this revival does either. That reduces the doctrine police’s audience to people who solely think like them. Have a good time talking to each other, fellas.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve forgotten about the playfulness of God during times of revival. Naysayers came from all different directions when reports of people making “animal sounds” in Toronto made headlines. The problem is that people were making animal sounds at the Cane Ridge Revival in 1801 as well. Critics bashed them, too. Many of those who said the revival was demonic were ministers. Yet, we don’t remember the critics…just the revival. And that is an excellent example of missing the point of what revival is about.

What is revival about? Revival is fun. Fun, people! That why seekers travel thousand of miles to get there. And to Brownsville before that. Not because they hate their local church. Not because they have trouble submitting to the authority of a pastor. They want to go and check it out because God is fun and so is revival. And they are hungry to know more about God. They actually want to believe that God can meet them where they are in a supernatural way. Is Bentley exegeting scripture in a way that would make a Harvard graduate proud? No. But no one expects him to. Yet, somehow God seems to use people who don’t take themselves so seriously. I heard Bentley say tonight, “I hope you don’t see Todd Bentley up here. I hope all you see tonight is Jesus.” Now, you can call him a charlatan if you want. But why not take him at his word? Why not treat him with honor and respect simply because he’s doing the best with what God’s given him? Why not treat him the way you would want to be treated? Oh yeah, that’s right. You’ve got an axe to grind. Sorry, I almost forgot…

See, critics have little faith in God. They simply cannot believe that the Holy Spirit can move in an atmosphere where excess may occur and still bring glory to the Father.  So, whose God is bigger – Bentley’s or his critics? I think you know the answer to that one. I don’t agree with everything Bentley says. But I feel he’s being authentic. Plus, he has some cool tattoos.

What if the Beatles Released a Scripture Memory CD?

It would sound like Rick Altizer’s Scripture Memory: Pop Symphonies. Or Queen. Or David Bowie. Or George Harrison’s solo work. Yes, people - it’s that good. Now, chances are you won’t hear this on a Christian radio station. Heck, you may not know who Rick Altizer is. But a lot of Christian musicians do – he’s one of those guys who has everyone’s respect but no airplay. His other albums are outstanding as well. Most of them involved Adrian Belew (King Crimson, Frank Zappa, David Bowie, Tom Tom Club).

This is a great way to support good Christian music. It’s also a great way to get your kids to memorize scripture. Give it a listen and check out Rick’s other CD’s at his website here.

What Constitutes “Good” Parenting?, Part 2

I wrote about this a while back and have since been reminded of a couple of biblical examples that spoke volumes to me.

The story of Eli and his sons is the first one (1 Samuel 2:20-36). Eli’s sons were priests and spent the majority of their time abusing their privileges in unholy ways. No one would consider them “nice, well-mannered young men.” They were first class jerks. This passage often makes it into parenting seminars as an example of a gluttonous, lazy, and personally undisciplined father and the havoc that his lack of restraint caused. In other words, Eli’s sons were horrible because Eli was a bad father. I can’t tell you the number of parents I’ve seen who, upon hearing about the inappropriate behavior of their children, are washed over with guilt for the actions of their offspring. And it doesn’t matter the age – the child could be forty years old and still the parents feel they are to blame in some way. The church reinforces those stereotypes, as if the personal humiliation isn’t enough on its own.

But here’s another biblical example we don’t talk about that much: the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 8). Do you know about his kids? They were just as bad as Eli’s – possibly worse! In fact, their injustice and willingness to take bribes is what casued the Israelites to want Saul for a king. That may explain why Samuel was so against it. Even as Saul is being appointed over Israel (12:1-4), Samuel is still carrying on about his sons still being available to judge Israel – as if they are a better choice than Saul. By all “Christianese” standards, Samuel is what a parent should be: a mighty man of God, modeling service and sacrifice to God on a daily basis. Someone to be admired and imitated. Yet, his sons reject his example, despite his efforts to influence them for the better. By chapter 12, it’s obvious that Samuel thinks a king is a bad idea – but more importantly, he’s so blind to his own children’s behavior that he actually thinks they are still qualified to govern Israel.

Okay, Sam, so what’s your point? Well, it’s essentially what I said in the earlier post. Good parenting is not about cause and effect or “if you do A, you’ll get B.” It’s not a formula. Parents have to believe that our parenting makes a difference. Otherwise, it’s an overwhelming task. But for Eli and for Samuel, regardless of personal devotion to God, the spiritual formation of any child goes beyond what even the best parents can do. Ultimately each person has to recognize the pursuit of God in their life and be willing to respond. I can do my best to create an atmosphere where the Holy Spirit can draw my children. But in the end, each child’s response is their own. But that’s not a bad thing. God pursues relationship with our children regardless of our behavior, simply because that what he wants. And his desire for their salvation far outweighs any hopes I may have for my children. So I model my Christianity, not because it’s important for them to see it. I model it because my Christianity is important to me. And as God pursues them, one day their Christianity will be important to them as well.

One Wish for My Children

I walked past my oldest daughter’s room this afternoon during her nap – she still occasionally takes one if she’s been playing hard that day. I stopped for a minute. Sometimes when I look at my children, I am overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for them. This was one of those moments – but it was also a time when I thought, I really hope I can teach and model the important things in life for her. I thought about life lessons that mattered to me now and also those that I thought were much more important than they really were when I was a child. I have spent a lot of time majoring on the minors, particularly as a young adult.

Of course the first life lesson I thought of was “love God.” That seemed like a right answer – certainly the answer everyone would expect a Christian parent to say to their child. But I got to thinking about the connotations behind that simple phrase. So much of my life was spent assuming that loving God involved “doing” or performing for him. I’ve talked about that wretched cycle here. But I really would like something more for my own children. That’s when I thought, maybe our life’s goal should be to let God love us. That’s was what I had missed all along. I was uncomfortable knowing that I hadn’t done something for God spectacular enough to merit his love. People in the church talk a good game about this – almost always quoting phrases about being saved by grace and something about unmerited favor. But honestly, what I see in the church is Christians working overtime to “prove” to God that they are worthy of the “unmerited” grace they have already been given.

Part of this has to do with our view of God. I’m a big believer that the more we understand God, the more we are comfortable trusting him. That goes the other way as well – lordship is impossible to give when you don’t trust God. See, God is a recreational being. He’s social. He’s playful and interactive. He likes relationship and relates to himself within the persons of the Trinity. Like we were talking about in Sunday school the other day, the last thing God was before the creation of the world was lonely. God is a recreational being completely fulfilled in the give and take of all the members of the Trinity.

We’re merely meant to dance the cosmic dance with our recreational God. That’s where our fulfillment comes from as well – not from another human. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with loving your family and friends. But there’s more to life than that. In Genesis, when God decides to make Eve, he does so because he thinks it will be good for Adam. But nowhere in the biblical account does Adam say he is lonely. Adam was complete just by socially relating to his Maker. But in creating Eve, God imitates his own recreational and social nature. That’s amazing to me.

So, that’s my wish for my children – not that they’ll love God, but that they will being willing to let God love them. That’s where fulfillment lies – within the realization of total acceptance by a relational and recreational God who’s whole intent is to give them their heart’s desire. Sound far-fetched? I don’t think so. It’s something I’m learning to walk in. I hope I can help my children understand that as much as God has captured their heart, they have also captured his. And that was God’s plan all along. 

Does Reformed Theology Restrict God More Than Process Theology?

I was talking about this with a friend the other day and am looking for some constructive input into the topic. I know I’ve got some serious thinkers that read this blog so I was hoping for some feedback.

Process theology is a relatively new phenomenon that, for most evangelicals, places God in a place of dependence upon nature – so much so that God is incapable of separating himself from the natural order. Of course, this presents a diminished view of God’s power and authorty – something quite unacceptable to conservative forms of Christianity. On the other hand, Reformed theology adherents usually are rather proud of the fact that in their system God remains sovereign – fully untouched by the human condition – while also providing a solution to the issues of sin and death. But it’s their view of atonement that has raised some new questions for me.

Reformed theologians often chide Process theologians for seeing God as dependent upon creation. But isn’t that what Reformists do with the penal-substitution theory? Hear me out while I explain this…and then let the hate mail pour in.

In the penal-substitution model, the sacrifice of Jesus appeases the wrath God by paying the penalty for sin. God effectively remedies sin for all humanity by releasing the punishment for that sin on Jesus alone. So, Jesus’s death though for humanity is ultimately for God – and this in turn frees humanity from their plight. According the that model, sin is the controlling factor in God’s efforts to rescue mankind. But God is bound by the effects of sin, something outside of himself caused by the actions of man. God chooses to honor that state of affairs and, if penal-substitution is the chosen model, allows sin to dictate his respose to our present world order. Supralapsarians (if they aren’t embarrassed of their belief that God ordained sin) could care less about this point, but for all other Reformists who believe God did not ordain humanity’s fall, this should be addressed. Though Process theology makes God dependent upon the world through panentheism, penal-substitution makes God involuntarily dependent on the death of Jesus in order to save humanity. In other words, sin puts God in a corner. At the cross, sin is sovereign, not God.

In the ransom model, God has an opponent: Satan – a force to strive against. And in the moral theory the cross displays the forgiveness of God outside of any payment for sin. But in the penal-substitution model, God is pitted against himself and bound by the neccessity of sin’s grasp over his own sovereignty. Sin is placed above God. God is sovereign over everything…but that. Looking at the sovereignty issues surrounding the cross, it seems that moral theory actually affirms God’s sovereignty more by allowing God to forgive sin however he chooses. But the penal-substitution theory severely limits God’s response to the human condition as if sin forces God to punish Jesus since God requires someone to pay for the infraction. It’s as if God created the rules, but then the rules forced him to punish Jesus. Put this way, God’s sovereignty is diminished within the universal causality that God himself ordained. It reminds me of the quote by Plato, “Not even God can fight against necessity.”

Okay – all of this is thinking out loud. And I would enjoy some feedback on this idea. But don’t blast me if you don’t know what, for example, Process theology is. Well thought out responses please. I’m sure this idea been discussed somewhere but it’s something I haven’t seen recently. Any thoughts?

How Much Can We Know about Hell?

I’ve heard a lot of sermons on heaven and hell. Too many I think. I have noticed something interesting in the last few years: the detailed accuracy with which people describe both eternal places. Preachers seem to know everything about heaven and hell. Particularly hell. And that strikes me as strange for a couple of reasons.

First, the New Testament language about heaven is pretty vague. Certainly not up to our Western standards of rational detailed analysis. Most heavenly images are taken from Revelation which is clearly a book of symbols and Jewish apocalyptic imagery. Plus we have various experts describing heaven in detail for us, even down to what kind of house we get and what types of jobs will be waiting for us. Honestly, despite the popularity of Randy Alcorn’s book, most of that is conjecture. Peacefulness, joy, and comfort certainly describe it, but most people understand that golden streets and crystal seas are illustrations for something truly indescribable. People are okay with a preacher saying, “I don’t know everything about heaven, but I know it’s gonna be good!”

What’s more fascinating is the painstaking detail in which hell is described. Eternal torment involving fire, pain, and torture. According to most evangelial views of hell, people have the rest of eternity to sit around on fire and think about the bad things they did. Okay, that’s a little sarcastic there, but honestly hell is used more often in altar calls than heaven is. Some people, just in my questioning of the standard image of hell are getting nervous reading this right now. But what’s so strange about that is just how ambiguous the Bible is about the afterlife. People are satisfied to know that God has prepared somewhere for them in heaven and that puts their lack of detail at ease. But hell is a different story. In fact the more detailed you can be, the better chance of scaring someone into salvation.

But really, hell is even more ambiguous than heaven. The Old Testament uses the word sheol to describe the afterlife – a word that means “grave” and little more. The Jews were relatively unconcerned about the afterlife, fully content to focus on what they could do in the present life to honor God. The New Testament seems to be more exact. But a closer look shows that there’s still a lot up for debate. Jesus describes some ideas about it, but never really gives us details. He compares it to a local garbage dump (Gehenna) and talks about worms. And there’s more. The Greek word (aiōnios) generally used to describe the fire of hell is translated in quantitative terms as “eternal.” But in other places the same word is used to describe qualitative measurement as the permanence of destruction. So, traditionalists say that it means eternal fire while conditionalists say it means permanent destruction (death) of the wicked. But the truth is that aiōnios and its Hebrew counterpart (olam) speak of things that all come to an end: the Passover, Caleb’s inheritance, Solomon’s Temple, and Gehazi’s leprosy. It’s just not that simple – the word means both. Similarly, traditionalists say that “gnashing of teeth” describes the torment of sinners in hell. But the ancient use found in the Old Testament assigned “gnashing of teeth” to someone about to destroy another – in the conditionalist’s case: God. So what does that mean to us today?  Honestly, it doesn’t tell us much.  And that’s the point I’m making. The same verses are used by people who believe different things about hell. And, surprisingly, I’m okay with that.

Why can we leave the details of heaven alone yet be compelled to extract every detail about hell? Because hell helps preachers out. Descriptions of hell illicit responses from people and, if used just right, can increase altar call numbers. But in doing that, I think we miss the point. When I told some youth I was preaching to the other night that the gospel is not about them not going to hell, they looked at me strangely. They simply had never thought that there might be something beyond “fire insurance” ans a list of do’s and don’ts to the gospel. The Bible shrouds the afterlife in ambiguity for a very important reason: so we won’t be tempted to bribe people into the Kingdom of God using either heaven or hell. If that’s what made you decide to be a Christian, then great. But intimacy with God lies beyond such ”survival of the fittest” techniques of evangelism. The gospel is about falling in love with a God who has already declared his unconquerable love for you.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention…

Two things: what I’ve been reading and what music I’ve been into lately.

I finished all the Patrick Lencioni books I bought a few weeks ago. They are about business management, employee relations, teamwork, etc. Excellent books. Read them for yourself and specifically for anyone in your employ. Along those same lines, I also read Matthew Kelly’s The Dream Manager. Once again, if you manage people please read this book!

I’ve decided to head back into Old Testament study for a while. I read Ellen Davis’s Wondrous Depth: Preaching the Old Testament and am currently working through Robert Alter’s translation of 1 and 2 Samuel: The David Story. Really interesting stuff there.

Musically, I’ve been exploring electronica and dance/trance music. I know - that sounds very unlike me. But I’m really enjoying myself. For all you Christians out there, Andy Hunter’s new album Colours is great. I’m not into the monotony of Paul Van Dyk and company – it’s all just too repetitive. But I have really enjoyed Robert Miles’s “dream trance” albums. Everybody mentions “Dreamland” but I really like “23 am” and “Organik” better. Ambient albums are what really have captured my attention – stuff like The Orb’s “Adventures…” I’ve also discovered The Thievery Corporation. Good music.

Life Update and Random Thoughts

Thought I’d update you on life a little bit. My dissertation defense has been pushed back a week or two – nothing to worry about, just logistical issues. I should be done by end of May. On that same note, there’s a possibilityof a local job that has opened up here, something we certainly weren’t expecting. I’ll let you know if nothing turns into something. Beth and I decided a while back that we would consider local jobs before entertaining anything else regionally or nationally.

I preached at a Baptist regional youth association meeting last night. It was fun – I haven’t preached to youth in a long time. Hopefully it didn’t show too much. It was the longest I’ve spoken in public in about two years. Two years! I think I did well – the youth came up afterwards and told me they enjoyed it and I caught several of the adults crossing their arms and scowling. That, my friends, is a sign of success at a youth function…

Beth and I have been car shopping. We don’t buy cars too often – we wait until they roll over 200k before even considering it. Our Honda Accord just did that. We’ve looked at all types of cars, concentrating on MPG (like everyone else). We’ve settled on buying a MINI Cooper. Strange choice huh? Yeah but the gas mileage is great and we’re a little unconventional anyway. I can tell you this: they are super fun to drive! More on that later.

I did notice something interesting while we were out car shopping the other day. We were the only people on the entire lot. Every dealership we went to was completely abandoned. The car salesmen did a good job of not acting desperate, but you could tell they were hurtin’ a little. It got me to thinking about America and our present state of affairs. All these beautiful over-sized, ostentatious cars glistening in the sun were just sitting there being driven by no one. It really represented much about the American mentality that intrigues me. The juxtaposition of “bigger is better” versus the reality of our relatively cash poor society. I chuckled at first, but then I felt a little depressed by it all. It just showed the emptiness of what society has placed emphasis upon. More than ever before, we now know that there’s more the life than cars…

On another note, I am watching the NBA playoffs fairly consistently. I was a Celtics fan back when it was old school – Bird, McHale, Ainge, Johnson, Parrish, etc.  So I’ve watched the Celtics with great interest. But what caught my attention the other night was Lebron James. And it had nothing to do with his stats. I was watching him – as he played, did interviews, interacted with others on the bench. Few people are more aware of themselves than that guy. Of course, we’ve created that scenario, but still the guy is unhealthily aware that he is on camera all the time. It was weird to watch him – everything he did reflected a cognitive awareness of his personal celebrity. Maybe that’s not what everybody else sees; he does a great job of looking nonchalant and humble. But I think there’s something more there – like with every drive to the basket, he’s thinking, “Hey, watch this America.” Maybe I’m wrong; I hope so. But maybe I’m not…