Blogging

Worth Reading #6 -- Taking risks for the gospel

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:00 -0500

The current (Nov. 7) issue of World Magazine has a thought-provoking article by Andrée Seu that all of us should read. She quotes from When Heaven Invades Earth, by Bill Johnson: "Risk must be taken to pursue solutions to impossible situations. The gospel of power is the answer to the tragic condition of humankind.... This is not an act on our part to somehow manipulate God. Instead it is the bold attempt to take Him at His Word, so that we radically obey His charge. He says 'Amen' with the miraculous. I challenge you to pursue God passionately. And in your pursuit, insist on a supernatural lifestyle."

Are we risk-takers? Do we try to do what's "safe," or do we "take a shot" for God? Andrée Seu writes:

My roommate on Cape Cod in 1974 was a Jewish girl who got saved on the Boston Commons when a Christian approached her, in all her hippiedom, and said, "Want to meet some normal people?" Susan said yes, and followed. If there is a worse evangelistic appeal, I don't know it.

Let me have risk-takers around me. Just as a practical matter. Let me have Christians who try things that fail, and then try something else. (Read on...)

Interview: John Piper and Douglas Wilson

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:56:00 -0400

Here's a video worth seeing. It's an interview between John Piper (a pastor in Minneapolis) and Doug Wilson (a pastor in England) about a debate (made into a movie called "Collision") between Wilson and Christopher Hitchens (author of God Is Not Great.)

One of the things Wilson says in the debate (not phrased this way in the video) is ""There are two tenets of atheism. One, there is no God. Two, I hate him." Watch this video, and think about it.

Link: John Piper Interviews Douglas Wilson About Collision

Worth Reading #5: How To Make Scripture Stick

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:07:00 -0400

I ran across this by Charles Swindoll, and it's pretty good:

I know of no other single practice in the Christian lifemore rewarding, practically speaking, than memorizing Scripture. That’s right.No other single discipline is more useful and rewarding than this. No othersingle exercise pays greater spiritual dividends! Your prayer life will bestrengthened. Your witnessing will be sharper and much more effective. Yourcounseling will be in demand. Your attitudes and outlook will begin to change. Yourmind will become alert and observant. Your confidence and assurance will beenhanced. Your faith will be solidified.

God’s Word is filled with exhortations to implant His truthin our hearts. David says that a young man can keep his life pure by treasuringGod’s Word in his heart (Psalm 37:31; 119:9 –11). Solomon refers to this inProverbs 4:4:

“Let your heart hold fast my words;

Keep my commandments and live.”

The words hold fast come from a single Hebrew term, meaning“to grasp, seize, lay hold of.” Scripture memory gives you a firm grasp of theWord — and allows the Word to get a firm grasp of you! Solomon also mentionswriting the Word “on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3) and havingScriptures kept within you so “they may be ready on your lips” (22:18).

Now, I know you’ve been challenged to do this before. But is it happening?Perhaps you have procrastinated because you have mental blocks against it.Maybe you tried, but you either did not see the value or could not get beyondthe method that was demanded. I understand.

That’s why we have designed a Scripture memory program that is different. (Read on...)

Worth Reading #4: Unquenchable Optimism

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:24:00 -0400

A regular columnist in World Magazine, Andrée Seu is always worth reading. In the September 12 issue, her column is entitled "Unquenchable Optimism." The Bible is a record of sinners who clung to a God who promised redemption. As Christians, we know we serve a triumphant God who has already won the victory over sin. We have every reason to be optimistic people, no matter what the nightly news tells us, no matter what crisis our families face, no matter what challenges rise in our jobs, no matter what the future looks like for our nation, no matter what our church is or might become, no matter what.

Her column is worth reading. It will make a difference in all these areas, and more. We, among all people, should be able to say with Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Here are her wise words...

Unquenchable optimism:

Looking for examples of authenticity? Go to the Bible by Andrée Seu

Ray Stedman writes in Authentic Christianity that the first mark of such authenticity is "unquenchable optimism."

Unquenchable: "unable to be extinguished, terminated, destroyed, or satisfied."

Optimism: "an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome."

Joseph had unquenchable optimism when he went from favored son to Egyptian jailbird, and he just kept doing his little prison jobs, one day at a time, because he knew he had a prophecy hovering over him (Genesis 39-50).

Moses' mom had unquenchable optimism when (READ MORE...)

Shack Theology: Partly Truth and Partly Fiction

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:03:00 -0400

A Review of The Shack

By Steve Sorensen

I recently read the hugely popular novel called The Shack by William Paul Young. Having sold more than 6 million copies, it brings a positive benefit to bookstore revenues and a negative effect on the theological worldview of many readers.

Some reviews praise it for getting non-religious people in an increasingly non-religious society to think religiously. Others issue grave warnings about this book, and some denounce it and recommend against reading it. Of course, that has the unintended consequence of making people curious enough to read it.

For those who may not have read it, or heard of it, you need a little background. It's not a happy story. A little girl was abducted, taken to a wilderness shack, and murdered. Her father (MacKenzie, or Mack) was burdened with guilt, "the great sadness." He was not a believer in Christ. He felt guilty for the tragedy and was blaming God. His wife (who was a believer) had a pet name for God -- "Papa."

One day Mack got a note, signed "Papa," inviting him to the shack. Of course, he went, and Papa (or God the Father) turned out to be, or to appear to be, a large African-American woman named "Elousia." She was jovial, a great cook, and very hospitable. The purpose in appearing as a black woman was to challenge Mack's stereotypes. Also present was Papa's Son, a middle-eastern carpenter, and the Holy Spirit (personified in an Asian woman named "Sarayu.")

God sometimes gets through to people by smashing stereotypes. So, when I say that the theology on which The Shack is built is wrong, I'm not talking about unconventional ways of communicating, or the unexpected ways God reveals himself (such as in appearing as a black woman.) God is sovereign and he has a right to smash our stereotypes. In fact, most of us need that from time to time.

In talking about what I'll later call "Shack Theology," I must say that the book is only a novel. No novel is above criticism, and even a "Christian" one will not reliably offer a biblical worldview. In other words, The Shack offers spiritual ideas, and some of those ideas conform to the spirit of the age. They are false.

At one time, ideas in The Shack would have been freely called "heresy." The problem with calling it that nowadays is that heresy is admired by some people. So, just let the reader be aware that much of what the book teaches is "not Christian theology."

Other reviews have approached book length in itemizing all the missteps that the author (who happens to be trained in Christian theology) takes. My aim is much more modest. I cannot write an exhaustive critique, nor would my readers want to read one. (Still, this review is longer than I wish.)

Simply put, The Shack is a popular novel that uses some Christian ideas and terms in order to explain mysteries that are beyond us. It falls far short of being sound theology, mostly because it picks only the biblical ideas that support the author's preconceived universalist theology. (Yes, universalism -- the idea that everyone will ultimately be saved -- is its chief area of "not Christian theology.")

Just a couple of points. First, The Shack tries to explain the doctrine of the Trinity by offering a distorted view of God and of Christ. I didn't catch much in the way of a distorted view of the Holy Spirit (although "Sarayu" seems more new-agey than the other persons of the Trinity), perhaps because the author is willing to allow the Holy Spirit to remain a mystery. Rather than allow God to remain a mystery, he totally overlooks God's holiness and his transcendence, and seriously damages God's attributes of justice and love -- concepts our limited minds can only hold in tension. Instead, he strips God of justice in saying "mercy triumphs over justice because of love" (page 166.)

But the Bible does not teach that God's love conquers his justice, nor does it teach that believers fear God's justice. Psalm 98 tells us that God is our judge, and that those who love him find joy rather than fear in his judgment:

8 Let the rivers clap their hands;

Let the hills be joyful together

9 before the LORD,

For He is coming to judge the earth.

With righteousness He shall judge the world,

And the peoples with equity.

Both justice and love are two attributes that God must fully retain if we are to believe in the God of the Bible. In fact, the chief reason heresy exists is due to man's attempt to resolve theological tensions that are humanly unresolvable. The attempt goes wrong because a limitless God won't fit into our small cranial containers. Let's keep both God's justice, and his love, or we risk distorting God to fit our fears and our misshapen preconceptions.

Second, I'll speak to the doctrine of universalism itself. It's an attractive doctrine, often expressed with the words, "I don't see how a loving God can send anyone to hell." Well, I don't see that either, but then I do not believe in a God who is merely a loving God. I believe in a God who is both loving and just, and I don't deny that some people go to hell. Does God send people to hell, or does he give them room to choose alternatives against him? Would we call God loving if he compelled people to live in his presence when they insist on living outside his presence, and in hostility to him?

In classic Arminian theology, hell must be real in order for people to have free will. And in classic Calvinist theology, hell must be real in order for God to be sovereign even over evil. Either way, for the Bible to be the source of our theology, we must recognize its teaching that hell is a reality. Though everyone may not agree that hell is a literal place of eternal fire, nothing could be worse than a place where God is totally absent. The horror is that some people choose just that. The real question isn't whether hell exists. The real question is, "Can we reject God's presence by persisting in our own self-will and be coerced into his presence? Can we choose the daily hell of rejecting God and still gain heaven in the end?" (Incidentally, universalists recoil at the determinism in Calvin's theology, but universal salvation is every bit as deterministic as Calvin's view.)

Partly truth and partly fiction

Kris Kristopherson wrote the famous line in a song about Johnny Cash, "He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction." That's an apt description not just of Johnny Cash, but of humans in general, and of The Shack. With that in mind, here's a short list of concepts that are "Shack Theology," or fiction, and "Biblical Theology," or truth.

Shack Theology: "...both evil and darkness can be understood only in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence" (page 138). Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but evil is not merely the absence of good. The Bible teaches that man's sin puts him at enmity with God. To say evil doesn't exist is to say sin doesn't exist. If sin can be rationalized away, then what the Bible teaches about God's holiness, Christ's atoning death, his resurrection, redemption, forgiveness, and reconciliation amount to nothing.

Shack Theology: All roads do not lead to Christ; some roads do not lead anywhere. But Christ will travel any road to get to you (page 184). Do not find comfort in this attractive but false idea. Christ traveled one road to get to us -- the road of the incarnation and the cross. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6.) It's dangerous to think that Christ will find us through any religion or worldview that denies him. Christ can reach people by showing them the falsehood of any faith, but millions die without Christ in every anti-Christian faith including Islam, atheism, and secularism.

Biblical Theology: "If you could only see how all of this ends and what we will achieve without the violation of one human will -- then you would understand" (page 127). Here the truth shines through that God is sovereign over history. We ultimately cannot understand the paradox of God's sovereignty versus our free will. Yet both sides of that paradox are still true -- God is so sovereign that somehow our free will does not limit his sovereignty. ("For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" Philippians1:6, NASB.)

Biblical Theology: Humans, having chosen the ravaged paths of independence, don't even realize they are dragging the entire creation along (page 134). In Genesis 3:17 (NASB), because of Adam's sin God said, "Cursed is the ground because of you." St. Paul picks up the theme, adding a redemptive note in Romans 8:22 (NASB), "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."

The greatest truth of all

Papa, early in his (her?) conversations with Mack, pointed to the middle-eastern carpenter, and said, "Mackenzie, the truth shall set you free and the truth has a name; he's over in the woodshop right now covered in sawdust. Everything is about him."

The Shack gets this biblical truth exactly right (although it derives some flawed Shack Theology from it.) Everything is about Christ. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8, NIV. See also 3:8) The truth will set us free. (John 8:32) The truth has a name ("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6, NIV.) He's in the woodshop. He's covered in sawdust. And everything is about him. He's dirty because he entered the world and accumulated our dirt. ("The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" John 1:14, NIV.) And he carried our dirt to the Cross.

And when the Holy Spirit makes our dirt (let's use the unpopular word, sins) known to us, he convicts us (John 16:8.) We can confess our sins and know "he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9 NIV.) He loved us enough to die for us, exhibiting God's love and satisfying his justice without compromise.

And so, God indeed works "incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies" (page 184.) "In all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28.) We have no human idea how this happens, but it's a promise given only to people who love God. Neither The Shack nor any heresy adequately explains it. We just accept that he is the sovereign redeemer, and all who love God can safely leave the resolution of all issues up to him as we hunger and thirst for his righteousness and hold onto the promise that he will fill us.

Two things to realize and four reasons The Shack is popular

So, if you read The Shack, realize first that it's only a story, and second that its theology is unbiblical and unreliable. It's popular for four reasons. It's an easy read. It speaks to the things many want to believe. It makes spiritual falsehood easy to believe. And it makes no call to moral living. Unfortunately, like many popularized "spiritual" books, it doesn't always speak the truth.

There, at 2000 words, is where I stop. Many reviews are much longer. If interested, see some of the 3565 (and growing) customer reviews at Amazon.com . If you're interested in reading a lengthy and comprehensive review of The Shack by a personal friend of its author, download it at: James DeYoung's Review of The Shack. Another fairly long review is available at Challies.com by Tim Challies, a Christian blogger. (Both of these are in .pdf format.)

Worth Reading #3 -- Chuck Colson on 'The Cost of Discipleship'

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:57:00 -0400

A few weeks ago someone (If I remember correctly it was Mike Blanco) gave me a printed copy of one of Chuck Colson's "BreakPoint" commentaries. It was about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his important book The Cost of Discipleship. Bonhoeffer paid the cost dearly. He was executed in a Nazi prison camp just days before the Allies liberated Germany.

From Colson's pen (April 14, 2009)...

In this month's Great Books series, Dr. Ken Boa turns his attention to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship. The book's greatness lies not only in the truths expressed, but also in the fact that the author lived those truths in his own life so powerfully.

In 1939, just two years after Bonhoeffer wrote The Cost of Discipleship, American friends arranged his passage from Germany to the United States. While others busily planned a speaking tour for Bonhoeffer, he grew increasingly unsettled.

He wrote a letter to Reinhold Neibuhr who had sponsored his trip, explaining that leaving Germany had been a mistake. He knew that Christians in Germany would have to choose between desiring their nation's defeat to preserve Christian civilization or desiring their nation's victory and thereby destroying their civilization. "I know which of these alternatives I must choose," wrote Bonhoeffer, "but I cannot make that choice in security." (READ MORE...)

Are you religious?

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:51:00 -0400

I've lost count of the times I've read (or heard) someone say that Jesus criticized "the religious people of his day," as though that somehow means Jesus would similarly indict religious people of our day. If there was ever a non sequitur (that's Latin for "it doesn't follow"), there it is.

I am not saying that Jesus automatically approves of "religious" people (whatever that means to you.) A person can be very religious and still be a very bad person. It's true that "religious" people are not necessarily in tune with what Jesus wants from us. Being religious can be stifling. It can rob us of joy. It can be misguided. It can foster self-righteousness and instill sinful pride. It can cause us to do evil. It can definitely take us in some very wrong directions.

When Jesus expressed disapproval of religious people, he used words like "blind guides" and "whitewashed tombs." Those are a couple of ways Jesus described the negative things that being religious can do to people. In fact, the conspiracy against Jesus that resulted in his crucifixion came, at least partly, from wrong religious motivations.

It's easy to see that being religious isn't necessarily good. And so it's no wonder that people don't want to be called "religious." But the problem with being religious isn't that being religious is bad. It can be good, but it can't be good enough.

You see, Jesus doesn't merely want people to be religious. That's not what he is calling us to. Being religious can be a way to avoid real heart-change. It can be a way to avoid a transforming encounter with Jesus. We can indeed be religious without knowing Jesus. Lots of people are.

But the fact that Jesus criticized and rejected some of the most sincere religious believers of his time (that's what the Pharisees were) does not mean that being a religious believer today stamps you as "rejected."

After all, Jesus never actually called anyone "religious." Have you ever stopped to realize that few Christians use the word "religious" of themselves? It's almost universally a word that non-religious people use to describe religious people.

Many of us who might be called "religious" by others often don't think of ourselves as particularly religious. We might even deny that we are "religious," and we might especially deny that describing us as "religious" says very much about us at all. At least, it doesn't say what's important.

The question I would ask of anyone who implies a link between the religious people Jesus criticized and people who follow Jesus "religiously" today is this: "Was Jesus religious?" Of course he was. He was very religious.

He kept all the commandments. He even affirmed the religious practices of one Pharisee when he told him it was good that he tithed even on the spices he grew in his garden.

So, Jesus never said there is something wrong with being religious. It's just not enough. It's not enough to do religious practices, which today might include church attendance, Bible reading, prayer, charity, and many other things.

But if being religious isn't enough, then what is enough? How do we go beyond being just religious?

How about abandoning the pride that being religious can instill? How about stopping our thinking that we can save ourselves by our religious practices? In fact, how about setting aside our personal "goodness"? Let's get self-righteousness out of the way. Then, for the sake of Jesus and those for whom he sacrificed himself, we can think of others by practicing justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

So, go ahead and be religious. You have no reason to avoid it. Read your Bibles. Pray. Attend church. Even contribute money. Be known as a practitioner of religion. Do all the disciplines of the Christian life.

But if you are religious (and I'm talking to believers here, people who have experienced the "new birth," who are regenerated, who know Jesus as savior), remember that being religious is not enough. Remember that you, like everyone else, are broken. And remember to confess and repent of your pride, and your self-righteousness. And be known as a practitioner of the things that show you love Jesus and you care about other people more than yourself. That's what Jesus did.

And don't fall into the trap of criticizing religious people. If you do, you risk slipping right back into the self-righteous attitude Jesus wants to free you from.

Micah 6:8 -- He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

~Steve

Worth Reading -- #2

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:44:00 -0400

Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, the bi-weekly Christian news magazine, always has a column inside the back cover. The one in the July 18, 2009 issue is the best "take" I've read yet on the failings of Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina.

The column is titled Riptide: Sometimes we realize we're swimming into a deadly current. Olasky begins:

Plato wrote, "Give me the songs of a nation and it matters not who writes the laws." Would a modern corollary, for many Christians, juxtapose songs, films, and even television minseries against the teachings of the Bible?

I ask that question while reflecting on the tragedy of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and what it tells us about ways in which Christians and non-Christians are similar and different. One similarity: The power of the riptide.

Olasky goes on to explain how the falsehoods our culture teaches, when we hear them over and over, tend to influence us, and we forget what the Bible teaches. Using Sanford's own words, Olasky shows how Sanford is a perfect illustration of this.

CLICK HERE and read on about the difference between how a Christian and a non-Christian handles serious failings. (Believe it or not, some non-Christian pundits would have counseled Sanford to cover it up.) --Steve

Worth Reading -- #1

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:12:00 -0400

I'm going to start posting once or twice a week to bring to your attention some things worth reading. In fact, I'll title the post "Worth Reading" and add consecutive numbering. Don't worry. These won't be things I write.(Often they'll be drawn from places like World Magazine, which offers a Christian viewpoint on the news.)

The first is a column by Andrée Seu (Barbara's favorite columnist in World Magazine.) The title is "No glib utterances" (July 18, 2009 issue). She covers a lot of ground in this piece, but it's all about issues common to us all.

On finding God's will: "Don't let some platonic fiction of 100 percent certainty keep you from doing something you are 80 percent certain God wants you to do." In other words, if we always insist on being totally certain before acting, we'll never act. God wants us to act, and often we must leave some room for faith.

On discouragement: "I discovered that discouragement is a choice I make and not something that happens to me." Yes, it might not be easy, but when we're discouraged we can do something about it.

On involvement: "Every time I have gotten involved in some Christian work, or with some group of people, I have not at first wanted to; I would have preferred to stay in my cozy home. And every time, I have ended up glad I got involved." That's a temptation to most (maybe all) of us. Resist it and you'll be rewarded.

On obeying God: "And the best kept secret about obedience in the face of a hard temptation is that there is a blessing waiting on the other side. Satan doesn't want us to know that. He would prefer the usual succumb-and-repent routine." That's laying it right on the line.

On sound theology: "If a person has impeccable theology but no love and no joy, I am suspicious of his theology. He hasn't understood the first thing." Lots of people should plead "guilty" to that one, and a "guilty" plea is also an admission of pride.

This one on forgiveness: "When you ask for forgiveness, make it clean. Resist the temptation to tack on qualifications or excuses. Do this even if the other person is more at fault than you." Forgiveness -- the big need. I don't think there are any limits to thoughts about forgiveness, just like there's no limit to a merciful God's grace to forgive.

One more, this one produced the title of the essay: "Every time you open your mouth, you are either building up or tearing down, ministering or manipulating, sowing for the kingdom or sowing for hell. How fearfully consequential are our most glib utterances." What we say matters. Let's build up, minister, and sow for the kingdom.

That's enough here, maybe more than enough. If it's not, CLICK HERE to read Andrée Seu's entire essay "No glib utterances." --Steve

Our new website...

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:18:00 -0400

After a long (and intermittent) search by Steve Courson and me, we've finally settled on a service to provide our church with an easy to use website.

But, we need help! If several people will jump on board, the load will be very light, and we'll be able to keep this updated regularly. Sunday school, church council, worship leaders and others (really, anyone who wants to) will be able to post to this blog.

We're building a list of great links that all of us (and I'm hoping many more) will find to be valuable Christian resources. We'll be able to keep you updated with regard to the building plans, missions, and much, much more.

It's easy, and fun. So talk to Pastor Steve if you'd like to help out. Right now, we could use someone to write a short (about 300 words) article about the advantages of living (and worshipping) in northern Warren County that we'll put under the "Our Community" page.