Pastors, It’s Time to Have ‘the Talk’ with Your Church

As the father of five, I’ve already had to have “the talk” with two of our kids. I’ll do the same again for our next rising middle-schooler this summer. It is uncomfortable and awkward for both parties, no doubt. But it’s necessary if they’re to avoid the pitfalls and dangers of our hyper-sexualized, permissive society. Pastors, it’s time to have the talk with our churches too.

Every Mainline church has been brought to the point of schism over sex. It has proven to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg -and the tipping point – of much larger differences between those on opposing sides of the debate. This is not to say that the debate about Christian sexual morality and the definition of marriage is insignificant. The tip of the iceberg is still part of the iceberg, and is significant enough it has proven able to sink the ship of even the largest Mainline denominations, including the United Methodist Church.

I don’t think we got to this point because the church has talked about it too much. We got here through one little compromise at a time over the course of many decades. Silence to avoid controversy has contributed to the build up of danger that has been lurking in the dark waters underneath all along.

We’re not in danger of hitting the iceberg that will lead to schism; we already hit it. We have been at least two churches pretending to be one for a while now. The ship hasn’t sunk, but it is taking on water. God will provide a rescue boat, but we have to be prepared to board it when it arrives. Pastors, it is time to prepare your churches. We have to have the talk.

I’m not happy about any of this. The division is heartbreaking. I weep, quite literally, for the church in which I was baptized, confirmed, and will soon be ordained, the Lord willing. After wandering away from the Lord, and the church, sinning egregiously, developing an alcohol problem that was dangerous to me and others, dabbling into drugs, being sexually promiscuous, and getting involved in a cult in college, by the grace of God, I came home to the Lord, and returned to the church and denomination of my upbringing. I renewed my baptismal vows and, among other things, I once again committed to “do all in [my] power to strengthen its ministries.”

There have been times when I seriously doubted – very seriously – whether I could remain in the denomination in good conscience. Nevertheless, I decided if I was to remain, I would do my best to fulfill that vow by speaking the truth in love to the best of my ability. My ability may not be much, but, by the grace and mercy of God, I have tried. I have committed myself to being as open with my congregations as I can be about what is going on in the denomination and why. It has not been easy. But I believe it is necessary. The time for beating around the bush has passed – not that there really ever was one. Having the talk is uncomfortable and awkward for the preacher and the congregation. But it has to be done, and we’ve got to get started somewhere. So where do we begin?

(Re)Introduce People to the Triune God of the Bible

Recent research led by the Barna Group indicates very few professing Christians actually have a Bibical worldview. We must help our congregations get reacquainted with the God of the Bible, who revealed himself most fully in Jesus of Nazareth. This can be hard. A couple of years ago one young woman, who grew up in a UM church, after participating in a Bible study which was designed to get people reading through the entire Bible, admitted that she wasn’t too sure whether she really liked the God of the Bible, which she was reading through for the first time in her life. The portrait of God in the pages of Scripture challenged her conception of a god that is the essence of non-judgmental niceness.

As is typical, she first thought it was just the way God is depicted in the Old Testament, but soon realized that the seemingly overly harsh judgment of God doesn’t really go away in the New Testament, even with the preaching of Jesus. She discovered that in many ways the preaching of Jesus about coming judgment only intensified the matter. She found no quarter in Acts, which early on tells the story of a married couple being struck dead for attempting to deceive (Acts 5), or in the writings of Paul, the other epistles, and certainly not in Revelation. Of course, God graciously and mercifully offers a way to escape judgment, but not by promising there will be none.

A few years ago I caught a news report of some type of a nudist group parading around New York City. A reporter asked one of the marchers, who was blurred out on screen by the way, why she was marching. When he asked about whether she thought what they were doing might be questionable morally, she revealed that she considered herself a Christian, but she said, “God doesn’t judge, so neither should we.”

So many churches, even in the evangelical world, have been so steeped in a conception of God as the ultimate “nice” guy, who just wants us to be comfortable with who we are, however we are, at least in terms of culturally fashionable sins, that they are shocked and even appalled by God as actually depicted in Scripture. So we have to begin addressing the idol in the room. This idol represents what Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton identified in 2005 as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). It is an unofficial religion that has inundated many modern churches in recent times, although it has roots and variants that go back a long way in the American church. At its core, however, it is hostile and inimical to Biblical Christianity. (Look here for a little more about MTD)

Once while delivering a sermon on the Trinity, I contrasted orthodox views with those of Jehovah’s Witnesses and some other groups. After the service, a gentleman in his eighties approached me and said that it was “un-Christian” of me to disparage the views of other people because who are we to say we are right and others are wrong. The irony was not lost on me that I was being told I was wrong for saying I believed Jehovah’s Witnesses were wrong about Jesus, although it was lost on him. Nonetheless, we must persist and preach and teach about the Triune God who is revealed in Scripture, Old and New Testaments, as,

“The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but will by no means clear the guilty …” (Exodus 34:7 ESV)

We have to address the idols in the room. And remember, Paul shows in Romans 1 that idolatry is the ground from which the poison berries of sexual immorality grows.

Now, Let’s Talk about Sex

We have to talk about the MTD idol in the room; we also have to talk about the elephant in the room that has brought us to the point of schism. In the past I was squeamish at evening uttering the three letter word that begins with s and ends with x from the pulpit. Semi-jokingly – very semi at first – I would actually say it that way rather than fully enunciate the word. But to avoid the topic altogether is ministerial malpractice. What people don’t know can hurt them.

The church should have been fully engaged in the conversation, but for the most part we took a back seat to the culture that has driven us off the cliff. Some will say that the church has talked about this too much, but even some of the most conservative evangelical pastors will tell you that they have not addressed it from the pulpit in a very thorough way, if at all. Rev. Dr. Chris Ritter, a leading United Methodist evangelical, said he has only preached on the topic of homosexuality from the pulpit one time in 28 years of ministry, and only then because people were asking. I’ve heard many others say the same. I asked a close friend and a member of another UM church a couple years ago if they were having any conversations about the controversy over sexuality in the church. She quickly responded, “Oh no, we don’t talk about it, because we would never want to hurt anyone’s feelings.”

One lifelong and very gifted lay member in another area, who decided to leave the UMC not that long ago said, “In 40 years in the UMC I can not recall any serious mention of sexual ethics, other than in the youth Sunday school class I taught for a time when I taught it. There were a few vague references to traditonal marriage or the like, but that’s it.” He said he was saddened, but also incredibly frustrated by the silence. There are many other gifted laity who have left their churches or who refused to support the churches financially because UMC leadership never seemed to take a clear stand one way or another.

One former member of one of the churches I served said he drove all the way to UM offices in D.C. to try to get some straight answers, but was not given the time of day. Frustrated he left for another denomination, and wrote an op-ed in the local paper explaining why. I know for a fact we have lost church members on the progressive side of the debate as well because of the dithering. Time for dithering is running short. Sooner or later everyone is going to have to make a decision one way another. The liberal Baptist scholar, David Gushee, recognizes this reality.

“I now believe that incommensurable differences in understanding the very meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of the Bible, and the sources and methods of moral discernment, separate many of us from our former brethren — and that it is best to name these differences clearly and without acrimony, on the way out the door.

I also believe that attempting to keep the dialogue going is mainly fruitless. The differences are unbridgeable.”  http://religionnews.com/2017/05/09/changing-our-mind-still-christian/

The time to stop dithering is now. I just saw where another very frustrated lay person asked: “Why are our pastors not talking about these things?!” It’s time to address the controversy head-on and clearly. But how?

Although some who know me would find it hard to believe, I have never delivered a sermon where the sole focus was on homosexuality. But I have not shied away from talking about Christian sexual morality and what constitutes sexual immorality in general. But I endeavor not to single anyone out. I approach it from the positive prescription and beauty of God’s design for human sexuality according to Jesus, which is celibacy in singleness and fidelity in the lifelong covenant union of a man and a woman called marriage (Mark 10/Matt 19). I state that this is God’s will for humanity and that any sexual expression outside of those God-given parameters is sin and harmful to self, neighbor, church, and community.

You have to start somewhere, and that seems to me a good place to start. Virtually everyone within earshot will recognize that they are falling short or have fallen short of God’s standard in some way. We should never single out one particular expression of sexual sin, or in any way hold up any particular set of temptations to condemnation while ignoring others. We should also call everyone to repentance and proclaim the good news of forgiveness in Christ and empowerment for a holy life of self-denial through the Spirit. I think we should only talk about homosexuality in the context of sexual sin in general, even if we do deliver a message focused mainly on that topic. (See a good example of how Rev. Chris Ritter addressed the topic in a sermon here)

We should also be clear that all are welcome in the church regardless of their past, or how they may currently be struggling with temptation to sin sexually in any way, except in extreme cases of abuse. I once had someone express concerns about a person teaching in the church who supposedly had in the past engaged in same-sex relationships. I refused to treat that person differently than I would expect myself to be treated for the past sexual sin I engaged in with the opposite sex. I also refused to treat people any differently because of the particular way they may be tempted sexually than I would expect to be treated because of the ways I am tempted sexually. As long as people love the Lord and seek to live according to God’s will without insisting on creating special exemptions for themselves or rejecting certain moral commandments they should be welcome to fully participate in the worship and ministries of the church.

There should be no special sanctions, but also no special exemptions. Nonetheless, we must address the issue of homosexuality specifically from time to time. As it is the presenting issue that has caused so much controversy for so long that has led to actual schism we must address it head-on, if ever, now.

Many in our congregations will wonder if people don’t choose their sexual-orientation, in other words, if they are “born that way”, then how can we say that homosexuality is wrong. Young people who got their theology from Lady Gaga, and older people, who watch the nightly news or Oprah or Dr. Phil, may actually believe that people are born with a homosexual orientation like people are born with a certain eye color, sex, race, or ethnicity. Indeed, these are the most prevalent comparisons, but they are false. We must point out that even the American Psychological Association, although they are in full support of the LGBTQI+ movement, admits that there is no consensus among scientists as to the cause of homosexual or bisexual orientations and no particular factor or factors, including a genetic one, has been discovered to explain it. 

The truth is any particular set of sexual desires is best explained in comparison to other sexual desires. Comparisons to sex/gender (although how convoluted has this become now!), race, and any other obviously immutable biological trait, like eye color, is misleading at best. Of course no one chooses their desires, but we do have a choice about whether or not to act on them. Who is prepared to say all one’s desires must of necessity be acted upon?

In the UMC, the debate has centered around the topic of homosexuality, primarily because of the specific language in the Book of Discipline regarding “the practice of homosexuality” being “incompatible with Christian teaching” and the other restrictions regarding marriage and ordination. But the truth is it involves so much more. During recent demonstrations during the judicial council hearing, one group there to protest the church’s official positioLGBTQ+n and to show support for Karen Oliveto, the woman married to another woman, who was elected Bishop by the Western Jurisdiction despite church law, held up a sign saying they support “LGBTQ+ Ordination.” Rev. Tom Berlin, who considers himself a moderate UM, recently clarified his support for full LGBTQ+ inclusion, specifically acknowledging the addition of the Q and the PLUS to the conversation.

We haven’t really had an open and honest debate about the L and the G, much less the implications of the B, T, & Q. And what about that + ?!! What all is included in that?

You can imagine that the folks who have discovered dozens and dozens of different gender expressions within that T, will find an exponential number of sexual orientations to pour into that plus! If it is wrong to expect those attracted to the same sex to not act on their desires, how can we expect it of those with other unchosen sexual desires? It’s naïve to believe there will be contentment with monogamy as some would have us believe. I personally know ministers who think it is unfair that only married clergy can have sex. I doubt they are few.

Before I became a pastor, one UM pastor in my area said he believed what the Bible says about sexual morality is antiquated. The truth is the ancient teaching of the Bible about sex is no more ancient than the updated versions of ancient pagan sexual practices the Bible condemns in the Old and New Testaments. If you take the ideas of the famed sexologist of Indiana University, Alfred Kinsey, and compare them to the unbridled sexuality that God prohibits in Leviticus 18 and what was practiced among the ancient Greeks and Romans, you won’t find much difference (see “Sexual Sabatoge” 2010 by Judith Reisman).

I’m not arguing a slippery slope, I’m saying we are already at the bottom of the slide with the LGBTQ+(PLUS!) movement, and it was all in the seed planted by Kinsey like a time-bomb to begin with. So we should talk about this broader context as well. What all are we really being pushed to accept? If you think the gender controversy, for example, is just about bathrooms for transgenders, you don’t understand the larger agenda. Even at the last General Conference of the UMC, the instructions given to all delegates included “do not assume anyone’s gender identity, even if you have met them in the past” and to ask everyone what pronouns they prefer: he, she, or something else (p. 39). Try that at your church this Sunday!

Don’t fall for the misleading way these things are often framed narrowly. Put the conversation back within the framework of the bigger picture. We are not really just talking about homosexuality.

Is it Really that Serious?

There are a couple reason why some won’t see why this should be taken so seriously. One is some see Christianity as their preferred self-help program (MTD), but not something that really has eternal implications. Sadly some choose their wardrobe with more care than they choose the church they attend. Others will continue to argue that what we think about sexual morality is a secondary issue at best and that we can and should just agree to disagree, which will ultimately lead to a tacit acceptance of behavior that the Bible repeatedly warns if practiced in a willful and unrepentant fashion will exclude one from the kingdom of God (i.e. 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-11; Rev 21:8). It just doesn’t make sense to treat behavior that could potentially land someone in hell as an indifferent matter. A lot of our pastors and theologians are really universalists though.

Others will continue to argue that the issue is not all that clear. If that is really the case then all the more reason to stick with the traditional teaching of the church until there is clarity. But I have never heard anyone who insists that the Bible is unclear say that. They always seem to argue in favor of changing the teaching of the church. They misuse “mystery” and “uncertainty” as a license to condone what the church has always called sin until the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

As I have shown before, others will argue that the Bible is clear, but say we just know better today and deem the Bible wrong. You have to admire their honesty if not their hubris. There are some pretty prominent names in this category such as Luke Timothy Johnson, and Walter Brueggemann. William Loader, who has written thousands of pages on ancient Jewish and Christian beliefs about sex also acknowledges that in all cases homosexual practices of any kind were considered “abhorrent” (p. 146 “Making Sense of Sex” 2013). Loader just believes the modern understanding of sexual orientation renders the Bible’s restrictions obsolete, or “antiquated” as the UM pastor mentioned above said. I think he underestimates the understanding of the ancients and overestimates the understanding of modern western progressives.

At any rate, this is essentially what UM pastor, Adam Hamilton argues. He says, contra 2 Timothy 3:16-17, there are some passages of the Bible that never were inspired by God, among them the passages prohibiting homosexuality. Similar to Brueggemann, he argues that some of the Bible does not reflect the heart and character of God revealed in Jesus, and should therefore be ignored. Listen to the way Brueggemann puts it:

“It’s not a matter of obeying the Bible — it’s about obeying the gospel. The gospel is about God’s saving love that wants to restore all of humanity to full communion. To reach back to an ancient text that has now been corrected by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is simply a bad maneuver and poor methodology and theologically irresponsible. Those texts are not the determinative texts.” (emphasis mine)

Too bad the apostles and authors of the New Testament missed that “corrective” revelation in Christ! What he and those like Hamilton and Johnson, have done is to create a cannon within the cannon to nullify the commandments they don’t like. They have created a tradition with a truncated notion of the gospel and a partial and, therefore, distorted, image of Jesus they use, in the words of Luke Timothy Johnson, to “reject the straightforward commands of Scripture.” In response I can imagine the actual Jesus of the Gospels saying something like, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God to establish your tradition” (Mark 7:9 ESV). The people in the pews deserve to know what they are really being asked to do.

We are really back to where we started: idolatry. Ultimately in order to justify behavior Scripture clearly condemns, people must create their own traditions that nullify the commandments of God (see Mark 7:13), and thereby carve out their own idol of a Jesus without judgment, who is acceptable to the world. You can’t really fiddle with the commandments against sexual immorality without fudging on the commandment against idolatry.

Pastors, it really is time to have the talk. And sex really is just the tip of the iceberg.  Be gracious. But be truthful. Get informed and inform, and pray for you and your congregation to be transformed by the renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2). Your efforts will be greatly appreciated by some, not so much by others. You will face resistance. And you will be tempted to remain silent. But if we are going to prepare people for the rescue boat that God sends we must resist that temptation and speak the truth in love.

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

Ephesians 4:11-16 NIV

 

Thoughts on the Book, “Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International”

I finished reading a book a couple weeks ago called, “Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International.” It was published earlier this year and written by Charlene Edge. It is incredibly well written, a masterpiece of storytelling really. For me it was also very personal. It helped me better understand my own story even through the crosswinds of painful emotions and memories that stirred in my soul as I read. Undertow book

Like me, Charlene was a student at East Carolina University, who got involved with a religious group called The Way International (TWI). For Charlene this happened in the early 1970’s; for me in the mid 1990’s (I shared some of my experiences in the first few blog posts on this site). Yet our stories and experiences intersect, connect, and overlap in many places, although we never crossed paths. Charlene’s masterful memoir helped fill in a few gaps in my own understanding of the group that left such an indelible mark, some scars, on both of us. My experience helped me learn quite a few hard lessons about how what you believe and what you don’t know can hurt you. What was really interesting to me is through our experiences with TWI, Charlene and I came to very similar conclusions regarding one TWI doctrine in particular, their doctrine of inerrancy.

I say “their doctrine” because TWI had their own very tailor-made version. The problem that Charlene and I both discovered was TWI, against their own advice, started out with an idea of what inerrancy meant, primarily driven by the ideas E.W. Bullinger. Then they proceeded to force Scripture into that paradigm. According to their founder, Victor Paul Wierwille, inerrancy involved a “mathematical exactness and scientific precision,” one his favorite phrases. Charlene actually worked in the research department at TWI headquarters in New Knoxville, and worked on their Aramaic (really Syriac) translation of the New Testament. Her task was tedious to say the least. What she and I both discovered was that TWI beliefs about inerrancy actually led them to distort the Bible. They contorted it to fit many of the unassailable premises that Wierwille had set in place. They are also very quick to suppress any challenges to those premises, as Charlene’s book so aptly shows.

One simple example of how one of Wierwille’s underlying premises led to distortion is his idea that roughly 80% of the Bible can be interpreted accurately right in the verse where it is written. Although, he talked about the importance of context, he clearly gave the impression that most of the verses in the Bible could be understood without the aid of context. This idea leads to prooftexting and TWI has a long history of engaging in it.

Prooftexting is the practice of looking to isolated verses apart from context to prove an idea or belief. It has a long history in America, and I wrote an article not too long ago about how it played a part in the theological crisis surrounding the Civil War. Just about every teaching delivered in TWI is an example of prooftexting. Just look at one of their articles on their website or in their subscription magazine and you’ll see what I mean. Virtually all of them start off with a topic and then string together verses from all over the Bible to make the case for the thesis statement. The truth is no verse should ever be considered or used as a proof apart from its immediate and remote context, period.

It’s not that one should never provide a Scripture reference for an argument. After all Jesus did that himself. But Jesus referenced specific verses with the immediate context and tenor of the entire Bible in mind. So should we. TWI offers a lot of “keys to Biblical research” that are built on fallacious premises. Based on these “keys” they force fit Biblical texts into their approved paradigm and downplay and ignore texts they just can’t quite get to cooperate.

Nonetheless, after I got out of TWI and started reading and considering the Bible outside of their box of “keys” I was saved and set free by the one who holds the keys that matter most (Rev. 1:8). I also realized how the doctrine of “inerrancy” could be abused and misused, even if just innocently misunderstood. So I put it on the backburner so to speak. What I discovered is that there are a lot of orthodox biblical scholars who have done the same, but not because they don’t believe the Bible is inspired by God and therefore reliable and true. Instead they are wary of the doctrine of inerrancy because it is so difficult to define and so easy to misdefine and force the Bible into a foreign paradigm.

Although Charlene and I both came out of TWI wary of inerrancy, my experiences led me to an appreciation and love for orthodoxy, while Charlene took an agnostic turn toward a skeptical view of the Bible and Christianity in general. Charlene is understandably wary of fundamentalism because of her experience with TWI. But I think she put too much weight on inerrancy being the primary driver behind fundamentalism. Christianity, including it’s conservative orthodox expressions, are much more diverse and rich to be summed up by any one particular label. Christian fundamentalism itself doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant when it referred to the very serious, brilliant Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to modernist challenges to the Christian faith from forces in the secular world and liberals swayed by those secular forces within the Church. Many would be surprised to know that some of the early fundamentalists did not see any conflict between the basic ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and Genesis. They  were not wooden literalists. Even one of the most prominent conservative Christian voices in America today, Tim Keller, is a theistic evolutionist and a believer in inerrancy.

Inerrancy was part of the early classical fundamentalist defense of the faith, but they were just evoking a belief that was expressed by the early church fathers when they said Scripture is “without error or excess.” This language is echoed by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, long before the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. In his introduction to his notes on the New Testament he said Scripture is “without defect or excess.” Inerrancy was a term coined during more recent times but it captures a belief about Scripture that can easily be traced back to the church fathers, the apostles, and Jesus himself.

Nevertheless, inerrancy is in may respects a shorthand way of saying the Bible reliably and truthfully conveys the message about God and salvation history that God intended to convey through it’s human writers. I remember R.C. Sproul saying inerrancy is a shibboleth of sorts to indicate that one takes the Bible seriously as the sole rule and criterion for genuine Christian faith and practice. This in no way should deter anyone from learning as much as possible about what the Bible actually says and what it means in its literary and historical context.

Any understanding of the Bible’s reliability and trustworthiness should emerge from a deep and honest encounter with the Bible itself. Coming up with a rigid definition of what inerrancy must mean beforehand is a recipe for … well …, a cult.

I think biblical scholar, Peter Enns, is right in many ways to say “defending Scripture has made us unable to read it” (part of the title of one of his books). I’ve also realized that attacking Scripture doesn’t help either. The attacks are the reason for the defense in the first place. Some attacks are not considered to be such by some who attempt to make the Bible more relevant to their present culture. As Alister McGrath says in his book “A History of Defending The Truth: Heresy” sometimes attacks on the truth come with the best of intentions to make the gospel more winsome. Sometimes the defense itself goes overboard, albeit still with the best of intentions. But in some cases the attacks are intentional in order to subvert the authority of the Bible in favor of a competing ideology, which often captures the hearts and minds of some within the visible church.

Attacks on the authority and credibility of the Bible can come in just as much of a wooden, literal form, sometimes more so, than the simplistic defenses offered by “fundamentalists.” What I have discovered is that those who seek to undermine the Bible’s authority in order to bolster the authority of a competing ideology or even their own personal authority, use wooden, literal interpretations to make the Bible look silly while overzealous defenders of the Bible sometimes resort to a wooden literalism to bolster its authority. It’s not just an ideology of inerrancy that can lead to distortion of the Bible; any ideology foreign to the Bible itself can. It is becoming more widely recognized for instance that Enlightenment ideologies led to distortion in the realms of higher criticism, for example. There are many postmodern ideologues who have no qualms about forcing the Bible into supporting a wide array of particular political agendas, as I showed with regards to immigration in that same post about prooftexting during the Civil War mentioned above.

As someone pointed out, sometimes ideas possess people more than people possess ideas. When the former is the case, the ideologue will force all of reality “to fit like a hand in a glove” (another one of Wierwille’s favorite sayings), to fit their ideas which often spring from sheer desire: greed, lust, and/or pride. This can happen with the Bible, but also with history and science (i.e. “scientism” is to science what “fundamentalism” is to religion). A rigid ideology that insists upon an errant Biblical text can be just as abusive, perhaps more so, as one that insists upon an inerrant text.

At any rate, I have re-embraced the traditional Christian belief that the Bible is without error or excess, but I do so in a more cautious, open, and nuanced way. This shouldn’t be equated with a simplistic literalism. The language of literalism and non-literalism is misleading anyway, a false dichotomy. As N.T. Wright says, the Bible really doesn’t mean what it says; it means what it means. I just sent a note to a friend about our families getting together this Friday. The last sentence I sent was “I look forward to it.” A flat “literal” reading wouldn’t really do justice to the intended meaning, which is to convey a sense of excitement and joy in anticipation of our future gathering. The statement means more than it says; it means what it means. A simplistic wooden literalism or an absolute “non-literalist” approach will never reveal the Bible’s meaning. Neither of those approaches are really possible anyway. Things are a little more complicated than that. I’m still learning myself as a man of faith seeking understanding.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed Charlene’s memoir. I highly recommend it. It is a fantastic read and very informative about the tactics of cult groups and the mindsets and emotional states that make one susceptible to them. I sent a note to Charlene on her blog to express my appreciation for her book. I am thankful for her gracious response and the private communications we have shared. I wish her the best on the rest of her journey through life. You can find a link to her book on Amazon here.

I highly recommend Kristen Skedgell’s book, “Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape”, about her experience in TWI as well. In it Kristen details her experiences of sexual seduction and abuse at the hands of Wierwille, the founding president, himself. It serves as a poignant and personal example of what Charlene says she was shocked to discover as being a more widespread practice for Wierwille and other leaders in TWI. During my involvement with TWI the second president, Craig Martindale, resigned after lawsuits were filed against him for abusing his position of power to have adulterous relationships with other women. As one of my church history professors at Duke said, sadly sexual licentiousness and heterodoxy seem to occur together frequently throughout history.

 

When Christian-ish is Just Not Enough

“The Almost Christian” (Sermon II) is a sermon that John Wesley delivered before the university at Oxford in 1741. In it he argues that a person can assent to all the right beliefs, participate in all the rituals of the church, make use of all the means of grace, and live according to the highest of moral standards, and yet not truly be a Christian. The “almost Christian” may by all outward appearances look like a Christian, but not truly be a Christian, what Wesley calls an “altogether Christian.”

What is required for someone to be an altogether Christian, a true Christian, according to Wesley, is an inward transformation of the heart to go along with the outward profession of the lips and behavior. Even the most orthodox professions of faith, and the most meticulously religious of lifestyles, may not necessarily spring from a pure and godly heart. Wesley himself admitted that he was but an altogether Christian for a long time, even as a minister in the Church of England who labored diligently to live a holy life.

To be an “altogether Christian” more is required than assent to Biblical truths, religious practices, and even a moral lifestyle. And this more that is needed is not something we can do for ourselves; it is something that only God can do for us through Jesus Christ and in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The more that we need is not just conformity to Biblical standards. According to Wesley we need an inward transformation of the heart. To be an altogether Christian, we need the love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), which will consequently lead us into genuine love of our neighbors, including enemies. We may say and do all the right things, but if we do so with the wrong motive of heart, namely love of self, then we are still far from the kingdom of God. In other words, we need to be born again (John 3:3-7).

In addition to love, Wesley said, to be an altogether Christian, we need a true and living faith. Indeed, genuine faith inspired by the love of God for us activates genuine godly love in us. But Wesley was quick to point out that the faith of which he spoke should not be confused with mere assent to a certain set of beliefs and practices, no matter how right and true they may be. Indeed, he said, “the faith which bringeth not forth repentance, and love, and all good works, is not that right living faith, but a dead and devilish one” (II:4).

In fact, Wesley was so bold to say that even the demons believe in the virgin birth, miracles, the divinity of Christ, that he died for the sins of humanity and rose again on the third day, that he ascended into heaven and will come again to judge the living and the dead. He said they, the demons, even believe the articles of religion (of the Church of England at that time) and “all that is written in the Old and New Testament” (II:4 emphasis mine). Wesley went on to say, “And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate, lacking the very true Christian faith.”

So the faith that Wesley was talking about involved much more than intellectual assent to a set of beliefs, important as that is. The faith of which Wesley spoke, is an genuine trust and absolute commitment to the person of God the Father through Jesus Christ. This is the faith that issues in repentance, love, and all good works. According to Wesley:

“The right and true Christian faith is” (to go on in the words of our own Church), “not only to believe that Holy Scripture and the Articles of our Faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. It is a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God; whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments.” (II:5)

As John Wesley righty discerned, the word of God calls us into a true and living relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. We enter this living relationship only through a true and living faith. Of course Wesley wasn’t pitting an experience of faith against the content, the specific beliefs, of the Christian faith. He was simply calling people to receive the inward transforming power of God by faith in addition to the outward conformity to the content of the Christian faith. In other words, he wasn’t suggesting, as some do, that the content of the faith is not that important.

What is really astonishing is that many of the things that Wesley listed as things that even demons know and believe to be true, are not accepted by a lot of people who consider themselves Christian today, even ministers. There are plenty who do not believe that all of the Bible is true. Sure, there are those who say they have a high view of Scripture, but, as with many things, it’s not the words that are used, but the meaning attached to those words that really matters. Often those who say they have a high view of Scripture, but reject orthodox doctrines (as I used to), insist on new interpretations to bring Scripture in line with their reason, desires, and/or sensibilities. Some will cling to their novel interpretations and their claim to a high view of Scripture, but others when pressed and unable to substantiate their views from Scripture will resort to questioning it’s trustworthiness in favor of their own views. Indeed, one of the surest ways to draw the ire of many a Mainline minister today, is to insist that Scripture is without error or infallible, which is a belief that can easily be traced back through the early church fathers to the apostles and Jesus himself.

Others will claim to believe in the orthodox doctrines concerning the nature of God, but, again, radically redefine them. How for instance can one really believe in the Triune God in light of the First Commandment and yet claim that other gods are just as valid? Some will speak of the Triune God and perhaps belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but what does that mean when it comes from someone with a pluralistic, syncretistic worldview that insists all religions lead to the same place? I think the meaning of those orthodox terms would be radically different than within a worldview that whole-heartedly believes the First Commandment understood in its historical, biblical context. As the United Methodist theologian Thomas Oden said he used to do before he experienced the change of heart that Wesley preached, some use the language of orthodoxy while all along undermining its true meaning.

In contrast to Wesley, some today seem to insist that even what Wesley called almost Christian may be too much to expect. Despite the attempts of some to narrow the range of what he considered to be essential doctrines that one must believe in order to be considered Christian, John Wesley included obedience to the moral law to be among the essentials and part of the ground for genuine Christian fellowship within the church universal. In his sermon “Catholic Spirit” he writes:

Does the love of God constrain thee to serve him with fear, to “rejoice unto him with reverence?” Art thou more afraid of displeasing God, than either of death or hell? Is nothing so terrible to thee as the thought of offending the eyes of his glory? Upon this ground, dost thou “hate all evil ways,” every transgression of his holy and perfect law; and herein “exercise thyself, to have a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward man?”  Sermon 39: Section 1:16

While Wesley made abundant room for varying opinions regarding modes of worship, baptism, and the particulars of church government, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he would allow for differing opinions regarding basic Christian morality. Indeed, I have no doubt that he would have no patience whatsoever for anyone who would insist on rejecting any of the clear moral commands of Scripture, which he, along with David (Psalm 19:7-11), Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20), and Paul (Romans 7:12), believed to be holy and perfect.

Yet some still want to insist that we don’t even need the faith of what Wesley called an “almost Christian”, really even what Wesley described as the faith of demons. Instead for many Christian-ish is plenty. Some want to insist that theology, or beliefs about God are all that really matter, and that issues of holiness are secondary matters. Some want to boil it all down to the least they have to believe to still be considered Christian. But if someone’s faith falls short of what Wesley said even the demons believe, can they possibly have a living faith that leads to “a loving heart, to obey [God’s] commandments”? (‘The Almost Christian” II:5)

Maybe Wesley was too extreme. Maybe being “almost Christian” is enough. Maybe even less than that, just being kind of sort of Christian-ish is enough. Then again, maybe Wesley was right, and being either of those is to still be totally lost.

Maybe settling for the minimum set of theological beliefs about God apart from the particulars of a holy life is foolish when the God we say we believe in says he created us in his image and says to us, “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16 quoting Leviticus 11:44 – KJV).

Assenting to a particular set of beliefs is not enough. Living according to a particular set of standards is not enough. But God’s grace to forgive us and cleanse us by the blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to change us from the inside out is more than enough. What would Wesley tell us to do?John Wesley preaching

Awake, then, thou that sleepest, and call upon thy God: call in the day when he may be found. Let him not rest, till he make his “goodness to pass before thee;” till he proclaim unto thee the name of the Lord, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.” Let no man persuade thee, by vain words, to rest short of this prize of thy high calling. (emphasis mine). But cry unto him day and night, who, “while we were without strength, died for the ungodly,” until thou knowest in whom thou hast believed, and canst say, “My Lord, and my God!” Remember, “always to pray, and not to faint,” till thou also canst lift up thy hand unto heaven, and declare to him that liveth for ever and ever, “Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee.”

May we all thus experience what it is to be, not almost only; but altogether Christians; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus; knowing we have peace with God through Jesus Christ; rejoicing in hope of the glory of God; and having the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost given unto us!  (“The Almost Christian” Section II:10-11)

 

 

The Promise with Power: The New Covenant

Below is a sermon I delivered this morning via Skype to a church in Islamabad, Pakistan. Before I delivered the message I sent a written copy several days before for the pastor there to review. He reminded me that they don’t have free speech there so he wanted to make sure there was nothing that might unnecessarily cause danger for him or his people. I was aware of the potential danger ahead of time, but his caution really brought it home. If you have taken our right to free speech for granted, may this be a wake up call, and may we all be thankful and not take it for granted.

I chose this particular message to put the message of salvation in the name of Jesus as soundly as I could in a short time in the overall storyline of the Bible as a fulfillment of the promises of God made in the Old Testament. Bibles are not easy to come by there , so most of them may not be familiar with how the story of Jesus is connected to the promises in the Old Testament. As far as that goes neither are most of the people in our churches in America even though we have such easy access to an astonishing abundance of Bibles in countless varieties.

Nevertheless, by connecting Jesus with the promises made to Abraham and the prophets I hoped to find common ground with those who may be from an Islamic background, and certainly all of them in a predominantly Muslim country. I also wanted to emphasize the promise of a new heart and the gift of the Holy Spirit along with the promise of forgiveness, as so often the later is emphasized at the expense of the former. See the message below.

*************************************************************************************

Brothers and sisters, I am very honored and humbled to be able to preach the good news about Jesus the Messiah and to teach you from the word of God the power in the promise of the New Covenant.

So often today in my country the complete message of salvation in the name of Jesus is cut short. As a result many do not really receive salvation at all or they do not live fully into the experience of salvation that Jesus died and rose again to create.

The reason that the message about Jesus is good news is because he fulfilled the promises of God for the world through his ministry, teaching, death on the cross, the resurrection, and ascension. Those promises that he fulfilled are found in what we call the Old Testament in the Bible.

One of the most significant promises was the promise made to Abraham. In a world lost in idolatry and false worship, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, introduced Himself to Abraham and established a covenant relationship with him and his children through Isaac and then Jacob. Through the children of Abraham, which became the nation of Israel, God promised Abraham that all the peoples and nations of the world would find blessing and once again come to know the true God. That promise is first found in Genesis 12:1-3, and is restated many times throughout the whole Bible, including the New Testament.

After the near sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, after providing a lamb for sacrifice, God once again promised Abraham that “in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (verse 18). The apostle Paul in the New Testament makes it clear that the ultimate fulfillment of that promise is found in Jesus who was a descendent of Abraham and the one who offered God the perfect obedience that the rest of humanity, Gentile and Jew, failed to offer.

Galatians 3:7-14 English Standard Version (ESV)

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Jesus is the Messiah and the Savior of the world because he fulfilled the promise to Abraham, which was a promise for all the peoples of the world. Through the death of Jesus on the cross all people everywhere, Jew and Gentile, can receive forgiveness of sins and the promised Holy Spirit by faith to enter into the family of God.

You see, the Old Covenant always contained the promise of the New Covenant. The covenant that God made with Abraham and the Jews was always meant for the blessing of the whole world. Because of sin the law of God brought a curse upon all of humanity. Not because the law is bad, but because sin, a selfish spirit and corrupted desires of the human heart, make obedience impossible and disobedience inevitable. Obedience to God’s law leads to blessing; disobedience leads to cursing. The law is good but it cannot save us from sin, only the grace of God in Jesus the Messiah can do that. The sacrifice of Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, brings forgiveness and allows us to receive the promised Holy Spirit. The promise of the New Covenant was forgiveness and a fresh outpouring of God’s Spirit upon all who believe.

Listen to the great prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (ESV)

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Here the prophet Jeremiah calls this new thing that God would do for his people a new covenant. This promise applies to all of God’s people, which would in the future include people of all nations and languages. Based on the promise to Abraham and the fact that the Bible tells us that God is the Creator and God of all nations, the prophets also foresaw the day when Gentiles would also be welcomed into the family of Abraham to worship the one true God. Isaiah foresaw the day when people of all nations would flow into Jerusalem to walk in the way of the Lord (Isaiah 2:2-3) and that the one who would be the suffering servant to redeem God’s people would also be a light to the nations that God’s salvation would spread throughout the whole world (Isaiah 49:6). The prophet Zechariah also foresaw the day when many nations would join themselves to the Lord and become a part of His special people (Zechariah 2:11), as did other prophets under the Old Covenant. As the apostle Paul said in Galatians, we all become children of Abraham by faith in Jesus to share in the promises made to Abraham and Israel after him. Listen to how Paul describes the fulfillment of these promises in Ephesians 2:11-22:

 

Ephesians 2:11-22 (ESV)

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

The promise in Jeremiah 31 is about the consummate forgiveness to which all the Old Covenant sacrificial laws pointed, but not just forgiveness. The promise was also that God would write his laws on our hearts. The promise mentioned here is stated even more clearly by the great prophet Ezekiel. Listen.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 (ESV)

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

The promise here is for a new spirit and a new heart, one no longer corrupted and bound by sin. The promise was that God would put his very own Spirit in us. Why?: So that we will be able to obey God’s law from the heart with the right attitude and the proper motivations. This is what God was referring to in Jeremiah when he said he would put his law within us and write it on our hearts.

The promise of God to Abraham included the blessing of all nations through his seed, which ultimately and most fully was Jesus the Messiah. The promise also included forgiveness and a new heart and a new spirit and to be filled with God’s very own Spirit, which is “the promised Spirit” that the apostle Paul was talking about in Galatians 3:14. This is also the new birth that Jesus talked about in John 3, when he told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God and enter into it you must be born again from above of the Spirit.

The promises of God that we receive by faith in Jesus Christ who fulfilled them includes forgiveness and new birth, a regenerated spirit with a new heart by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit coming to live inside of us. By faith we are justified in the eyes of God and receive the promised Spirit, who changes us from the inside out to live a godly life in harmony with the moral law of God in order to bring glory and honor to God the Father. This is what Romans 8 means when it says the Spirit enables believers to fulfill the just requirement of the law, specifically the moral law of God as summed up in the Ten Commandments. Those who have the Spirit are enabled to submit to God’s law and obey because of what God has done in His grace through sending his Son.

Now as Ezekiel 37 would indicate, the promise will not be completely fulfilled until the resurrection. Jesus’ own resurrection was the first fruits of a much greater harvest yet to come. Those who have trusted in God will be resurrected to live in a new creation, a new heaven and earth (see Revelation 21:1-8). It is then that the promise of perfect obedience by the power of the Spirit, and therefore perfect blessing without any curse, will be fully complete. But in the meantime, we are being renewed day by day as we renew our minds to God’s word, the Spirit is writing more and more of God’s law into our hearts and spirits. Right now our task is to grow into the salvation that God has wrought for us in Jesus the Messiah. When we sin, we are assured that God is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) so that we can become more and more holy in our walk with God.

By faith we enter into the new covenant family of God as new born babes. And as new born babes we need to continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus the Messiah and to be filled more and more with the Spirit of God until we are mature and strong in the Lord and the power of his might to stand against the devices of the devil who would deceive us and keep us from receiving the fullness of the promises of God.

Don’t just settle for forgiveness without the personal transformation that was meant to go along with it, because if you do you may not receive either. By faith we must allow God to remake us from the inside out, which is a life-long process. It is a hard, narrow path, as Jesus said, in Matthew 7:13-14, but it does lead to abundant life and everlasting happiness in the world to come.

Jesus has fulfilled so many of the promises of God already, the fact that you and I can call each other brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus being one of them. We can trust that our hope is secure and that Jesus will bring what he has started to full completion when he comes again to judge the world. He will bring with him an incorruptible new life for those who have died in faith and a new immortal body for those who are still alive in the faith when he comes. His promises are sure; his word trustworthy and true. For those who trust in him he promises new life, both now in this world, and fully and completely in the world to come.

Trust in him. Grow up into him. Be strong in the Lord and the power of his might. And stand firm in the holy faith and in his holy church as witnesses to God’s faithful love and His transforming grace.

The New Covenant is not a prescription of precepts that we follow in order to be saved; The New Covenant is a promise of power fulfilled by the grace of God in the obedience of Jesus Christ that we might receive forgiveness of sin and the power we need to live a life of obedience to the will of God. In other words we are not saved BY obedience; rather we are saved for obedience to God’s word. We are not saved by works; but we are saved for good works (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

Listen to Titus 2:11-14:

Titus 2:11-14 (ESV)

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

The New Covenant was a promise of forgiveness and power and blessing fulfilled by Jesus Christ that we can receive by faith in him. If you haven’t already done so, I urge you to receive it today by faith in Jesus the Messiah, and be filled with all the fullness of God. To Him be all the glory, honor and praise!

Let us pray.

Father,

I thank you for these my sisters and brothers in the faith of Jesus Christ. I thank you for your great love in Jesus Christ our Lord and for the power and presence of your promised Holy Spirit. We love you Father. Help all of us to grow in your grace so that we may be more obedient to your holy word. Thank you for forgiveness through the blood of Jesus. Thank you for new birth by the power of your Spirit. Help all of us to renew our minds and to be more and more transformed into the likeness of Jesus. Fill us with all of your fullness that we might live to the honor and glory of your name. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

 

“The Shack”: How Firm a Foundation?

Several weeks ago I received a message from one of my church members asking for my thoughts on the book “The Shack” and the movie that was just coming out at that time based on the book. She said she had read something critical of the story, which she had read, and had even participated in a church study group a few years ago on the book. At that point I had only heard about “The Shack”, but had never read it even thought it had been recommended to me. Neither was I familiar with the author, Paul Young. Since I knew little to nothing about the book or the author, I really couldn’t say much for sure. I did tell her that if it varies too far from the revelation of God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Bible then it might be misleading.the-shack-grayscale-graphic3.jpeg

Over the course of the next several weeks I did come across some articles that were critical of “The Shack”, a couple from the reformed and conservative Lutheran branches of the church, and a couple from evangelical United Methodists  (See Dr. Ben Witherington’s thoughts here and Dr. Chris Ritter’s here). I also listened to some interviews with the author, Paul Young. It seemed to me that there was indeed much to be wary of. Yet the reviews were mixed with some praise for “The Shack” movie, at least, coming from some conservative evangelical voices.

Last week I stayed up late a couple of nights and actually read “The Shack” in its entirety. I know some have tried to dismiss the concerns that have been expressed over the last several years by saying that it’s just a fictional story, a parable, and therefore shouldn’t be criticized so much for theological imprecision. But is it true that there is only room for theological nitpicking when it comes to this story?

Paul Young has made it clear that he intended to describe his view of God and what God is really like in story of “The Shack.” His parable is also certainly about dealing with human pain and brokenness that result from broken relationships and injustice, but he also wants to correct what he perceives to be misconceptions about God that exacerbate that pain. So “The Shack” paints a portrait of Young’s view of God. The question is whether or not this a complimentary or contradictory portrait of God compared to what we find in the Bible.

The first clue that Young might be setting up a contradictory view comes fairly early in the book, on page 65-66. At this point in the storyline the reader has already been rocked by the nightmarish tragedy of the main character, Mack, barely rescuing one of his children from drowning, only to discover, after a frantic search, that his young daughter, Missy, has been abducted by a cold-hearted, callous serial killer, called “the Little Lady Killer.” Also at this point the reader is hooked by a momentous mystery. Mack has received a note in the mail box inviting him to return to the shack deep in the woods where he and law enforcement had found Missy’s ripped, blood-soaked dress. The note is signed, “Papa”, his wife’s affectionate name for God. As Mack ponders whether the note might actually be a tantalizing invitation to meet with God or a taunting trick of a serial killer still at large, Paul Young, as the narrator, brings into question Mack’s seminary training that he says had reduced God’s voice to the paper of Scripture in order to keep God bound in a book only to be interpreted by the proper authorities. Young says sarcastically, “Nobody wanted to keep God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” (p. 66)

Here, I think, we have more than a little hint that the God Mack will encounter in the shack will burst the boundaries of traditional evangelical interpretation at minimum and probably even the contours of the way God is described in the Bible itself. It seems pretty obvious that Young here anticipates criticism and objections to his view of God and was probably trying to inoculate his enthused readers from criticism by way of caricaturing his inevitable critics. Again, the question is not whether the depiction of God in terms of the metaphors and symbolism used by Young is identical to what we find in Scripture, but is his depiction of God in harmony with or contradictory to what we find in Scripture? Was Young suggesting that God may reveal himself in new ways, but in ways that are in harmony with the Bible, or was he suggesting that God may reveal himself in ways that contradict and therefore correct the Bible itself?

In “The Shack” Young boldly attempts to cast his vision of God in terms of the Christian concept of the Trinity. There are some commendable features to Young’s explanations of the Trinity in that he captures that God is inherently and eternally a relational being of mutual respect and love. Overall, however, he blurs together the distinctions between the three persons enough that it seems more like a functional Unitarianism than the Trinity. All three persons bear the marks of crucifixion and all three are described as becoming human in the incarnation (i.e. John 1:14 when the word became flesh).

Moreover, in terms of the depiction of Jesus, he seems to be for all practical purposes fully human but not really divine. Sure Young describes him as divine and even as the God-man, but functionally his version of Jesus never has or ever will draw upon his divine nature to do anything. He only lives moment by moment as every human being was designed to live in relation with God and relying on God’s power. Papa tells Mack that Jesus was “just the first to do it to the uttermost” (p. 100). Young’s Jesus is nominally and inherently divine but not functionally so, even  after the resurrection and ascension.

This may seem like nitpicking, but this is a different portrait of Jesus than the Biblical portrait that reveals that Jesus not only shares the divine name and titles such as I Am, the Lord, God, the Alpha and the Omega, etc., he also shares and exercises  divine power and functions such as the power to raise the dead (John 5:21), including raising himself (John 2:19-21). Jesus also exercises the divine authority to judge, a power delegated to him by the Father, who judges no one, Jesus says (John 5:22-23, see also Rev 4 & 5 ff). And, as we will see, divine judgment gets redefined quite a bit too in “The Shack.” Nevertheless, “The Shack” seems to have a high Christology nominally but a very low Christology functionally

Young also gives us a much more confused version of the Trinity than necessary. Of course it is a great mystery of the Christian faith, but the mystery of God’s divine nature should not be used as an excuse to blur and redefine those things that God has revealed to us in Jesus and in Scripture. One such area of confusion is in terms of Young’s depiction of the Trinity as non-hierarchical. That is, that there is no hierarchy of authority between the three persons. Young does not believe that genuine relationship can involve any hierarchy. To Young hierarchy is inherently bad and only a result of broken relationships. So, of course, there would be no hierarchy among the perfect relational being. Yet, again, this is not the portrait of God that we find in the Bible. God the Father sends the Son, the Son reveals the Father and is the way to the Father, and the Father and the Son send the Spirit who brings glory to the Son, who in turn brings glory to the Father. Jesus said himself that the Father is greater than him (John 14:28) and 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that when Christ has subdued all things under his authority he himself will be subjected to God the Father. Young seems to envision the perfect being and the perfect society in terms of an absolute equality of power and authority in mutual submission. Consequently, Young also conveys an anti-institutional sentiment throughout the book. I believe this is directly connected to his view of God, or possibly vice versa.

The Bible, however, does not convey the idea that a hierarchy of authority is inherently bad, even within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in terms of their shared divine nature and the dignity and honor that accompany that nature, but the Bible does portray them as having different levels of authority. Likewise God created human beings in his image and we are all equal in terms of human dignity by virtue of our shared human nature, but God has given each of us talents and gifts that differ from one another. So some will have more authority in society and in the church than others. Those God-given higher authorities are to be obeyed in so far as they are in harmony with the highest authority, which is God (see Romans 13, Hebrews 13:17, Acts ).

Hierarchy is not inherently bad. What is bad is selfishness and greed inspired by sin that can cause some to abuse their God-given authority. Hierarchy is not inherently corrupt just because it can be corrupted. There is no possibility of that within the being who is absolutely perfect and incorruptible in righteousness, justice, and holiness. And relationships don’t have to be less loving because of differing levels of authority.

Institutions are not inherently bad either. They too can become corrupt and abusive, but they doesn’t make them inherently so. If there is to be order rather than confusion and chaos there will inevitably be organization, which will lead to organizations. Young seems to make the mistake of thinking you can have the power of spirituality without the form of religion, such as ritual and institutions. To acknowledge the power of spirituality one need not deny the form of religion (see 2 Tim 3:5).

Young also reveals an impoverished view of the law and rules and responsibilities. He has Sarayu, his character for the Holy Spirit, answer in the affirmative to Mack’s question, “Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Young’s Holy Spirit responds, “Yes, In Jesus you at not under any law. All things are lawful” (p. 203). At best this is a confused conception of Christian liberty based on a misunderstood slogan from the 1st century church on Corinth (see context of 1 Cor. 10:23). God’s grace and the power of the Spirit don’t free us from the moral law to live contrary to it if we want. God’s grace frees us from the righteous condemnation that disobedience to the law brings, and the Holy Spirit empowers us to live in harmony with the law of God (see Romans 8 & Galatians 5:16-26). As with hierarchy and institutions, Young, at least, seems to imply that there is something deficient and inferior about the law itself in contrast to Paul who insisted that the law is good (Romans 7).

Indeed the law of God itself is good, it is a reflection of the very character of the holy and righteous God. The problem is not the law; it is sin. Because of sin, the law can only condemn. According to Romans 8 the Spirit enables believers to overcome the power of sin so that by walking in the Spirit the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us (v. 4) because we will submit to God’s law (v. 7-9). This was the promise of the New Covenant all along (see Jer 31:31-34; Ezk 36:25-27), which Young seems to allude to, but he does so in a confused way that throughout history has led to misunderstanding grace as a license to sin rather than freedom from sin for obedience to God’s law. Compare part of the New Covenant promise found in Ezekiel 36:27 fulfilled in Jesus to what Young’s version of the Holy Spirit says in “The Shack.”

“I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” Ezk 36:27 ESV

“‘Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?’ Mack had now completely stopped eating and was concentrating on the conversation. ‘Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” The Shack p. 203 

Young’s main concern with the law is not that it leads to the righteous judgment of God because of sin, but that law leads to the worst sin of all in the eyes of Young and most of the more liberal persuasion in general: judgmentalism. The God of “The Shack” is loving, affirming, and accepting, but not really into judgment, at least not as traditionally understood.  The God of “The Shack” is not concerned about responsibilities and expectations because that would lead to guilt, shame, and judgment. Young’s God is never disappointed with people (ps. 205-26). No expectations? Never disappointed with anyone?

How does that portrait compare to Jesus’ telling of the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30? What about Mark 9:38?! How does it square with Micah 6:8 that tells us what God requires of us? Of course what God requires God provides by his grace and his Spirit if we will turn to him, but he does seem to expect us to work from, NOT for, but FROM the grace he has given us to produce fruit (Mark 12:1-12?).

And what about the judgment of God? The God of “The Shack” does judge but not for destruction, only for redemption (ps. 169; 224). For Young the fire of God’s judgment is for purification not condemnation. But God never punishes. Indeed God doesn’t punish sin; he only cures it (p. 120). Of course God can and does cure sin, but will the Great Physician cure those who absolutely refuse to receive his medicine of immortality?

As many have long suspected Paul Young envisions a God of universal salvation, meaning all will eventually be saved. This fits well with his vision of the nature and character of God in which he emphasizes love and mercy at the expense of justice for those who refuse to repent (see Rev 6,14,16, 20, & 21). In “The Shack” after Jesus shocks Mack by saying he doesn’t care if people of other religions become Christian, Mack asks if that means all roads lead to him. Young cleverly has Jesus respond, “Not at all. Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

This clever response probably provided Young with some wiggle room to dodge reasonable concerns that he intended to promote universalism. 20 million copies sold later, he apparently no longer feels like he needs any wiggle room. In his newest book, “Lies We Believe About God,” he makes explicit what was more subtle in “The Shack.” He leaves no doubt that he believes that everyone is already saved and that it is a lie that anyone “needs to get saved” (see Tim Challies’ article). He said as much in “The Shack” to begin with. He believes that everyone is on the same path and headed in the right direction, some are just farther along than others. And death in no way will end that journey and neither will hell.

But what does the Jesus of the Bible say?

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few

 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Matthew 7:13-27 ESV (see also Matthew 24 &25)

Of course those of the more liberal theological persuasion will probably love “The Shack.” Those steeped in the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism that pervades so many churches will embrace it and promote it. It will find plenty of welcome on the OWN (Oprah Network) and in New Age circles as well. And some conservatives who were a little too eager to give Paul Young the benefit of the doubt may not have seen the red flags that have been there all along.

“The Shack” serves up quite a bit of false assurance with the big helpings of comfort food coming out of Papa’s kitchen in the shack. The vision of God that Young portrays is really not complimentary with the revelation of God in the Bible. The two views are contradictory. To build your life on the theology of “The Shack” is to build on shifting sand. To build your life on God’s word is to build your life on the Rock Christ Jesus as he is revealed in the Bible. You really have to choose, and there is no indication in the Bible that you will have all of eternity to do it.

The Hard Truth

In the 19th century leading up to and during the Civil War, Mark Knoll argues that there was a theological crisis (in “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis”) that fueled much of the heat of the debate before and the bloodshed during the conflict. The war that pitted American against American and cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides was driven in large part by theological and philosophical certainty on both sides. This certainty was inspired by an overconfidence in the Enlightenment notion of reason. It was believed that the truth was easily discerned by people of goodwill. As a result it was easy to dismiss those with opposing views as willfully distorting the truth. Those, including some black preachers, with more subtle, nuanced, and substantial arguments against slavery as it was practiced in America that depended on the wider biblical and historical context were muted by the overwhelming cacophony of simplistic arguments undergirded by biblical prooftexts ripped from their context. The simplistic arguments governed by this overconfidence in reason made demonization and polarization  all the easier on both sides. (I highly recommend Mark Knoll’s book.)

Once again we find ourselves deeply divided and extremely polarized in America to the point that some have suggested there is a cold Civil War that’s getting warmer and warmer all the time. Now, however, it’s not so much that there is an overconfidence in the ability to know the truth, but an overconfidence that truth is merely subjective or so unknowable that anyone’s guess is as good as another’s.

The atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche insisted that life is not about the will to truth as much as it is about the will to power. According to this way of thinking truth claims are simply cloaks for some to ascend to power over others. Therefore relatisix and nine perspectivevism has reigned supreme for many decades now, and not only among the cultural intelligentsia.

The meme to the right has made many rounds on social media. The idea is that both people are right in their claim to what the number is because they are just looking at the same thing from different perspectives. In this abstract hypothetical illustration that claim may very well be true, but if the intended implication is that all of life is like this we would rightly be wary. In the real  world there’s not much that exists apart from some context. And context always narrows the range of possible legitimate interpretations of words and actions.

Take the number in the illustration above and imagine it on a championship team photograph for your favorite college basketball team as part of a heading that says “2016 NCAA Men’s College Basketball National Champions.” To say it is nine instead of six now would be a  much more dubious proposition. One could argue that the 6 is a typo that was meant to be 9, but even then one would also have to believe someone like Marty McFly brought the picture back from the future in Doc Brown’s time traveling machine. There would be a lot of other immediate contextual clues and more remote historical evidence (i.e. print and online news reports) that would more than justify the claim that the number is really six instead of nine. The accumulation of evidence would narrow the range of meaning evermore as the contextual evidence mounted. Historians rely on this and logical deduction to determine the motivations of actions or the meaning of words expressed by figures in history. Detectives also rely on contextual evidence and logical deduction to solve crimes.

Relativism leaves us at the mercy of subjectivism; subjectivism leaves us at the mercy of the will to power. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that those bent on the will to power have not proven themselves all that merciful. The will to power is not concerned with truth, only claims to truth. Facts become putty in the hands of people more concerned about controlling narratives to influence perception,which they insist is reality. Whoever can be the cleverest to persuade enough people wins. But relativism, it seems, has not robbed many of those who adhere to it of certainty. Unlike the early 19th century, however, the certainty is not rooted so much in reason. Now for many the certainty seems to be rooted in desire and the beliefs inspired by it. Many are certain about what they want, and they bend reason and facts to suit their desires.

I think Nietzsche really was on to something. I believe in absolute truth, although I don’t believe in the human ability to know it easily, and certainly not exhaustively. I don’t believe we can know much of anything with certainty in any absolute exhaustive or complete sense. There is always much more than we can know about any given thing. We know in part and what we do see we see through a glass dimly and obscurely, as the apostle Paul noted (1 Cor.13:12) . We can’t know anything certainly, but because of that we will all come to believe certain things about what we do know with conviction. Faith in something is inevitable for all of us. We are are wise, however, we should be open to modifying or changing our beliefs in the light of more evidence. If we are absolute ideologues, however, we will not. In that case we will cherry-pick the evidence that supports our existing beliefs and ignore or suppress evidence that doesn’t.

Nietzsche, the son of a pastor, came to believe something. According Damon Linker, Nietzsche “presents us with the peculiar spectacle of a philosopher who began his intellectual life, not from a position of openness to an elusive truth not yet grasped, but rather from an unshakable conviction that he had already found it, and that all of human experience and history had to be reconceived in its light” ( https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/08/nietzsches-truth). What was this truth that the man who claimed that all claims to truth are just cloaks for the will to power? According to Linker, Nietzsche biographer, Rudiger Safranski, reveals a man who “devoted his formidable intellect to making sense of the world in terms of its intrinsic meaninglessness.” Apparently his presupposition was that life is meaningless from which the conclusion that we can make it mean anything we want is easily derived, want meaning desire being key.

Living only according to the fulfillment of our own desires is what the Bible describes as “having no hope and without God in the world” (this state described in Eph 2:12 corresponds with the state of being described in Eph 2:1-3). This seems to be exactly the state that Nietzsche found himself in, which led him to conclude that is all there is. It is all there is for sinful man apart from God, but in His mercy God in Christ offers us more (Eph 2:4…).  Considering that his earliest philosophical work was “On the Origin of Evil” at the age of 12, perhaps Nietzsche starred into the abyss too long at too young an age. Narcissism and nihilism, both of which are characteristics of evil, definitely found welcome in his soul, which is probably what left his mind debilitated by insanity at age 45.

Humanity in sin is a slave to corrupted human desires such as greed, sloth, and lust. For these corrupted human desires truth, another name for the higher desire and will of God the Creator, and reality come to be seen as subservient to desire. Living with our own corrupted desire exalted above truth, however, as Ephesians 2 indicates, leaves us at the mercy of the spiritual forces of evil, which, again, have always proven to be merciless. But when our desire is exalted above all, we will attempt to bend reality, the truth, to serve our desires. In other words, we will lie, which involves distorting the truth and/or suppressing it.

While those who are playing the game of the will to power often say that all beliefs are equally valid, they obviously care a great deal that people believe some things but not other things. Hence, the use of propaganda and clever tactics of persuasion, which often involves distortion and suppression of evidence that would make the case for the truth or the closest possible approximation of it.

From the the biblical perspective sinners don’t live for the truth; sinners live for the fulfillment of their own desires. As a result truth becomes either useful, malleable, or dispensable depending on the combination of the circumstances and what is most conducive to personal expediency. When one’s own desires rule, the attempt will be made to make truth bow. Wherever sinful desires reign truth will suffer suppression. But the truth is the only thing that can set us free from slavish desire and the prince of the power of the air who uses those so enslaved for his own narcissistic and nihilistic purposes.

The will to power is the devil’s game, and it is often waged with clever sounding slogans designed to persuade enough people that those wielding the slogans can fulfill their desires for comfort, security, and pleasure usually without the troublesome specter of personal responsibility and accountability. Often these sinister slogans come in the form of prooftexts from the Bible.

Referencing specific verses or passages from the Bible is not wrong, after all Jesus himself did exactly that in fending off the temptations of the devil in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11). It’s not wrong as long as we don’t do it like the devil himself did to tempt Jesus by quoting a part of Scripture without regard to the overall context and tenor of the Bible as a whole (i.e. Matt 4:5-7). We should always endeavor to use any particular biblical text in a way that is in harmony with the overall context of the message of the Bible as a whole. The same is true for the writings and speeches of other people too, by the way. The same goes for scientific (hard and soft sciences) studies as well. More context can only help to clarify by narrowing the range of legitimate interpretations.

Someone who is not interested in context is not interested in the truth. The most pressing debates among us can never be settled by who can mount the most prooftexts for their cause. Recently, for example, some who usually aren’t so concerned about what the Bible says about some things, like sex, were suddenly concerned that people care about what the Bible says about the way we treat immigrants and refugees.

In order to make the case for a liberal immigration policy and against a particular conservative view, many provided a slew of prooftexts from the Bible. The gist of what many of them were arguing seemed to strongly imply that it is an easy, open and shut case, that all immigrants should be welcomed without question and hesitation. Some even argued that safety shouldn’t be a significant concern because it is not a priority for Jesus, who obviously didn’t consider safety when he risked arrest and crucifixion. When some of them were challenged by arguments that put the liberal prooftexts back into the light of the original context, they just dismissed it as an attempt to make excuses for disobeying the clear commands of Scripture with regard for the care of immigrants and refugees.

But many of those same people are not so strict when it comes to the clear commands of Scripture with regards to sexual ethics, commands that, as I have shown before, are even considered to be clear by some of the most prominent liberal scholars. Some, who on the one hand want to argue that 2000 plus year old texts have no relevance for sexual ethics in 21st century America, on the other want to argue that it’s just a simple matter of biblical obedience with regard to the current immigration debate in the United States in 2017. I think we should be very welcoming and lavish in our generosity toward immigrants and certainly refugees, but we can do that without throwing caution to the wind. The issue is complicated. I don’t know exactly what should be done. It seems pretty obvious that there is a higher calculus at work than just helping people in need. There’s obviously political power at stake on both sides. Nevertheless, from a biblical point of view the issue is also definitely more complicated than some want to acknowledge.

Just take one of the prooftexts for example.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Lev 19:33-34 ESV)

This is a beautiful and wonderful text, one that is certainly echoed by Jesus in the second half of Matthew 25. But, look, this text itself evokes a much broader context of the story line it’s found in. This text must be understood within the story of Israel coming out of Egypt and wandering in the wilderness before they enter into the promised land of Canaan. The stranger here being evoked is not necessarily someone who would have migrated from another country, but was in many cases a person of one of the Canaanite tribes who inhabited the land before Israel arrived to take possession of the land. For the Israelites this meant driving out the Canaanites who refused to accept Israelite control of the land and to live according to the laws of Israel’s God, Yahweh.

  “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.” Lev 18:24-28 ESV

The strangers or foreigners to be loved as the Israelites loved themselves were those who agreed to live peaceably among them, and were often of the Canaanites who originally inhabited the land, like Rahab (Josh 2 & 6), the Gibeonites (Josh 9; 2 Samuel 21), and Uriah the Hittite. Yes they were to love the stranger/foreigner who was committed to living peaceably with them, but there were also general restrictions for certain nations that had proven hostile to Israel when they came out of Egypt, like Moab. Moab tried to have them cursed and eventually seduced Israel into sexual immorality, which is what God warns against in Leviticus 18 above, and idolatry (Numbers 22-25). Of course the Moabite Ruth, who accepted the God of Israel as her own, is a significant exception to the general restriction. There’s much more that could be said, but if you think Leviticus 19:33-34 and other texts like it make an open and shut case for a particular view on the current immigration and refugee debate in the United States … Well, I don’t know what to say.

We cannot prooftext our way into the kingdom of God. We can’t prooftext and cherry-pick our way to the truth. Soundbites and slogans won’t suffice. We can’t prooftext and cherry-pick our way to peace and prosperity either. If all we have is personalized individual truths designed to fulfill personalized individual desires, all we will have is never ending conflict and misery. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions; I suppose it’s also replete with slogans and prooftexts for road signs along the way. Getting to the truth requires much more than prooftexts, it requires context and a lot of patience and work, hard work. And that is the truth, the hard truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning with Ashes

Below are some of my reflections on Ash Wednesday and Lent from last year with a few additional thoughts:

We begin in the mud of ashes, a journey in the dark shadow of the cross, knowing it’s a shadow cast by the glorious light of the resurrection. Why begin Lent with ashes?ashes_6329cnp

In the Bible ashes, often paired with sackcloth, a coarse and uncomfortable material, symbolize repentance, humility, and/or mourning in the aftermath of disaster or impending potential doom. Upon encountering God, after seriously questioning God’s justice in the midst of his own great suffering, Job repents in dust and ashes. The king of Nineveh, with Jonah’s reluctant pronouncement of looming judgment, fasted in sackcloth and repented in ashes. Ashes remind Christians of some of the first words of our Savior’s preaching, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Ashes also remind us of the righteous judgment of God that stands against us because of sin, as well as its penalty, which is death. The penalty for rebellion against God’s law, is “you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Although physical death is included, the worst of it is spiritual death, being cut off from God, the source of life, goodness, and blessing.

Accepting the black mark of ashes on our forehead at the beginning of Lent symbolizes our acceptance of the righteous judgment of God against us as sinners. It is to confess, as did Daniel on behalf of Israel as he sought God’s face through prayer and fasting in sackcloth and ashes, that we were and are wrong to break God’s commandments and that God’s judgment against us is right and just (see Daniel 9:3-19).

Nevertheless, the mark of the ashes in the sign of the cross reminds us of God’s mercy because His only Son, the perfectly holy and righteous One, took the penalty that we deserved and “bore our sins in his own body” (1 Peter 2:24) with the result that we who were spiritually dead in sin received new life through forgiveness by the canceling of the debts and just legal decrees that stood against us, which “he set aside nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-15).

The mark of ashes also reminds us of our need to take up our cross daily, to die to sin, to “put to death” any lingering attachments to the old age, the fallen world that is passing away, and any remaining corrupt desires and habits of our old selves before we were born anew into the kingdom of God (Colossians 3:1-17). We engage in this discipline of Lent, not to be saved, but because we are saved; and because we are saved, we know we are being saved daily as we grow into “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).

The ashes remind us that “in the midst of life we are in death.” The sign of the cross reminds us that “our help is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth” (Psalm 124:8). It is He who sent his very own Son to die for us so that we could live for Him.

In Christ we can live as those who are prepared to die, to die daily to sin, and, therefore to die in hope at our appointed day to stand before the judge of all the earth (Hebrews 9:27). We die in the black shadow of the cross but also in the light of the resurrection. When we are prepared to die; truly we are prepared to live, knowing that the one who formed us from the carbon dust of creation to begin with will from the ashes and dust of death raise us to new life, daily, and on the last day. Are you prepared to die?

In the beginning God formed us from dust and ashes. He formed us like clay; His fingerprints are all over us. He breathed into us the breath of life. When we rebelled and our love failed, God’s love remained steadfast. In sin we return to the dust and ashes. By grace through faith we rise with Christ to walk in newness of life now and on the last day we will rise again from the ashes of the sinful world from which God makes all things new. Those who humbly begin in ashes end up in glory.