Int_Pomeranian_Society's Xanga

Sermon - I John 5.13-21

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:42:26 GMT

Sermon I preached on I John 5. The last one in a series I've been doing since May.

The Shack

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:30:01 GMT

A review of William P. Young's, The Shack.

The success of The Shack is an inspiring tale in and of itself – the sort of story that will perhaps inspire a book itself in the near future! William Young wrote the book as a personal project and after unsuccessfully shopping it to the major Christian Publishers, decided to publish it himself. With an initial budget of $300 for marketing, the fact that there are over 4 million copies of The Shack in print is nothing short of remarkable! Judging by the multiple enthusiastic customer reviews on websites like Amazon.com and Christianbook.com that promise to “...give a copy to everyone I know for Christmas”, it is inevitable that The Shack is once again destined to be a subject of conversation this holiday season. I have read the book multiple times now and hope to add my voice to the conversation surrounding this book.

For those who have somehow managed to avoid hearing about The Shack (perhaps by living in the shed behind the ax?) the central question it seeks to answer is, “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable injustice?” Young weaves his answer into a story based on a heart-wrenching past event: The daughter of the main character, Mackenzie (or Mack) was abducted by a pedophilic serial killer. The impact of this event, referred to as The Great Sadness, has left Mack alienated and in despair. He receives an invitation from someone named 'Papa' to spend a weekend in 'the shack', a reference to the abandoned building where the bloodied clothes of Mack's daughter were found. Mack decides to go in spite of his misgivings, and spends a weekend with the entire Godhead – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Given the subject matter, it is no surprise that this book has been controversial. The reviews have been both glowing and condemning. Dr. Eugene Peterson claims that it has the potential to do for this generation “...what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!” Dr. Albert Mohler, on the other hand, says that the book contains “undiluted heresy.” This is a polarizing book – most people either love it or feel that it borders on the sacrilegious and blasphemous. If you would like further proof of this, read the reviews that have been written about it in the customer comment sections of Amazon.com.

I fall into the group of people who would mark this book as harmful and bordering on heresy. I know of many people who have read the book and found it to be inspiring and 'exactly what I needed.' I am not out to attack anyone or to judge their particular circumstance, but I would like to point out some areas where I feel this book is misleading and how it ultimately fails to give any meaningful answers to the many questions it raises.

If you have heard anything about The Shack, it is that God the Father is portrayed as a large black lady called Papa. This comes as a bit of a surprise to everyone, including Mack. Papa explains her/himself, “Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female... If I choose to appear as a man or woman, it's because I love you... To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes.”(pg. 93) It is certainly true that God does not have anatomical physical features that identify him as male, but it is also true that God nowhere refers to himself as a female (Matt 23.37 notwithstanding). This indicates that gender is not merely a physical feature, but is primarily of spiritual origins. At the very least, Young is presuming to speak of God in ways that God himself never speaks of himself.

Many people have harshly criticized Young for portraying the Father as a Woman. However, I think that is missing the biggest problem. Young's portrayal of God is idolatrous not because God has been portrayed as female, but because God the Father is portrayed as a human. This breaks the second commandment which expressly forbids the setting up of an image of God. Michelangelo was as wrong to portray God as a elderly European white male on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, as Young is in portraying God as a matronly southern Negro woman. The defence could be brought, “He was not saying that God is a black woman, he only portrayed him that way to get us to think.” Would portraying God as a Golden Calf, as the Israelites did (Neh 9:18) not get us to think differently about God, and break down preconceived notions? It would, but it was condemned by God as blasphemy. So, the problem is primarily that God the Father has forbidden a representation of himself, be it white man, black woman, or golden calf. Moses' solution was not to build a idol that did not reflect Egyptian religious preconceptions, but to destroy the idol altogether.

I am not overlooking that in many Bible stories, God is represented by a human – and certainly no one would accuse the Jesus or the apostles of blasphemous representations of God! Some people have suggested that reading The Shack as a parable helps to avoid some of the problems that arise from a more literal reading. However, this assumes that The Shack should or was intended to be a parable, when it is not. So, what is the difference between the parables of Jesus and Young's story? The primary difference is in the type of story. Jesus' stories (and Bunyan's and Lewis', for that matter) are allegories and parables. Young's book is not. A parable is a brief story that attempts to illustrate a singular point. Not all elements of the story are to intended to convey a parallel truth. For instance, the story of the unforgiving servant should not be used to prove that Christians can lose their salvation. Jesus' point is the absurdity of not forgiving when you have been forgiven much yourself. An allegory is much like a drawn out parable – Pilgrim's Progress being the most famous example. An allegory tells a story in which many events and circumstances are intended to mirror real-life or spiritual truths and experiences. An allegory does not seek to illustrate as much as it seeks to explain by way of parallel

However, the serious errors in The Shack cannot be dismissed as part of the inadequacy of allegory. The Shack is neither parable nor allegory. It is vital to realize that Papa does not represent God, Papa is God. Young does not employ clever metaphors and symbolism to make us realize which characters in his novel are representing God, he instead has God enter his story. This is not an imagining of what it might be like within the Godhead, Young is instead telling us what it is like. So, while the book is obviously a work of fiction, it is meant to communicate real theological truths and is neither a parable or an allegory.

I am not 'picking' on this book because I am a stick in the mud who demands every theological 'i' to be dotted and every exegetical 't' to be crossed before something can be classified as helpful. It is not because I feel that God is portrayed as too loving, or that the relationships portrayed in the book are too good to be true. It is also not because I am trying to defend what Young so often attacks in 'dead Christianity' – he has many valid and useful criticisms. It is because I want people to have deep relationships with a loving Father that I feel this book is so unhelpful: It sells us a false bill of goods. I will be honest – there were parts of this book that put a lump in my throat. Anyone who reads this book without feeling the pain of the question, “Where is God in these awful circumstances?” is a stoic person indeed. However, the answers that 'God' gives in the book are not truly emotionally satisfying or truthfully factual.By portraying God as having physically incarnated himself in order to answer these questions, Young downplays the significance of the fact that God has already answered these questions in the person and work of Christ! This is what Christmas is about – The Son incarnated in humanity in order to 'exegete' and explain the Father (John 1.18). The Son in turn is revealed through the work of the Holy Spirit who works through the written testimony of Scripture.

By downplaying and casting serious doubt on the sufficiency of Scripture, Young is free to cast God in the way that makes most sense to him and appeals emotionally to him. Young does not take his cue from Scripture, but instead mocks it and casts it as something restrictive, 'orthodox', and relationship-killing. For instance,

“In seminary he [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book.” (pg. 65-66) What Young and many others do not seem to recognize is that it is not man who has bound God to a book, but instead, God himself has chosen to reveal himself in that particular way.

While there are many things that I disagree with in the book, I do not want to work my way through pointing out all the areas where I differ. There are fuller treatments out there on the Internet that deal with Young's serious errors concerning the Trinity, the atonement, and the extremely negative view of authority and rules. What I am arguing is that these errors are inevitable given the view that Young takes of how God is revealed and has revealed himself. The way that God is portrayed in this book tells us more about William Young than it does about God. The crucial thing we must realize is that no matter how emotionally appealing the way God is portrayed in The Shack, if it is not an accurate portrayal, Mr. Young is attaching us to an idol! The emotional appeal of an idea can only have true merit in so far as the idea is true. The idea that Bill Gates will write me into his inheritance has tremendous ability to lift my outlook on my financial situation – but it is not true, and it would be folly for me to act as though I had millions in my bank account! Feelings that we have 'drawn closer' to God are of no value if all we have been drawn to is our own idolatrous conceptions.

This disregard for the word of God in preference for emotionally derived conclusions can be seen throughout the book. For example, consider this dialog when Mack is in the kitchen with Papa, and comments how she is so much different than he imagined:

“Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible? You just don't seem to fit the bill”

“I understand how disorienting all this must be for you, Mack. But the only one pretending here is you. I am what I am. I'm not trying to fit anyone's bill.”

“But you are asking me to believe that you're God, and I just don't see...” Mack had no idea how to finish his sentence, so he just gave up.

“I'm not asking you to believe anything, but I will tell you that you're going to find this day a lot easier if you simply accept what is, instead of trying to fit it into your preconceived notions.”

“But if you are God, aren't you spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?” Mack could feel his deep anger emerging again, pushing out the questions in front of it, and he was a little chagrined at his own lack of self-control. But he asked anyway, “Honestly, don't you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you?”

At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it.” (pg. 119-120)

Mack raises a very challenging question, even if the way it has been posed is a bit sarcastic – which is representative of the biting tone of the book. What should be obvious to anyone reading this is that Young is making definite statements about the character of God, and that given his low view of Scripture, his statements are not based on God's self-revelation. You will notice that the Bible is represented as portraying God as 'running around killing people'. Papa does not seek to correct this straw-man representation of God's justice, but instead circumvents the problem entirely. Papa does not answer Mack's question, but we can be easily fooled into thinking he/she/it has. In many ways, sin is its own punishment (Rom 1), but this does not answer Mack's question. God is indeed portrayed as being enraged at sin and humanity's wickedness in the Bible:

“Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless. I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.” (Isa 13:9-13)

The idea that God does not actively punish sinners makes it easier to feel 'close' to him. However, Papa does not address the fact that God is revealed as a just judge who punishes with death in Scripture. Instead of perhaps explaining how Mack is mis-reading Scripture, she simply denies that he punishes sin! Over and over again, Young ignores what Scripture has to say on almost every issue, choosing instead to philosophize his way to a palatable God whose main goal in history is to have relationships. This can be seen in the discussions about hierarchy, power, the Atonement, the identity of the Children of God, and the structure of the Trinity. It is not that I disagree with Young's interpretations of certain passages of Scripture – I am shocked by the way that Young's theology manages to avoid being informed by the Bible. Compare this with Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, each page littered with Scripture references. Bunyan celebrates God's word, Young ignores it except when he seeks to condemn those who hold to it as God's final form of self-revelation.

It is not too serious a charge to say that Young's God is an idol and is not in fact the God of the Bible. I realize that some people are perhaps seriously offended by such a statement, because they love the book and by extension, I appear to be accusing them of loving an idol. I hope this comes across loud and clear: I am not saying that if you liked the book or felt helped along by it that you yourself are necessarily a heretic. There is much about the book that, if Young had been describing the Biblical God, could be described as an imaginative and helpful description. Sometimes it sounds as if he is describing the true God, and it is to these similarities that we are attracted. Let me use an example to explain what I mean: Have you ever had a conversation with someone and they mention the name of someone who lives somewhere. The name and place sound awfully familiar, so you ask, “John from Calgary? Tall guy with brown hair?”

“Yeah, about six-two?”

“Yeah, yeah, I think I know him! Did you meet his sister?”

“Mary?”

“Oh, I thought her name was Deborah.”

“No – maybe we are thinking of a different guy? Does he hang out at the gym? Really big guy?”

“Uh – no. We must be thinking of different guys. The guy I know is a video game tester.”

I believe that part of the reason The Shack has struck a nerve is because it portrays a God who is not merely existing as an abstract entity, but who exists in a relationship with others. This is a precious reality that is completely Biblical. So, in many respects, the reason many Christians feel this book is so helpful is because there is much in it that reminds us of our own Father. My concern is that many Christians, recognizing the similarities, will be seduced by these similarities into believing another God and another Gospel. The Father and Holy Spirit did not enter human existence as the Son of God (pg. 99), God did not overcome justice at the cross (164-165), the Father is not submitted to the Son (122-123). Like I said, I have hardly compiled a list of the many false conclusions that are contained in this book. What I am attempting to address is an attitude that says, “Well, there are lots of good things in it.” If what I am saying is true, then even those parts that Young sounds good at are in fact visions of a false God. As Mark Driscoll says, “Do not drink from a toilet just because there is water in it.” As far as I am concerned, deriving theology from The Shack is as dangerous as deriving theology from the Koran. Allah and Jehovah have many similarities – but it is the differences that we must be aware of and on guard against. Better go to a pure, undiluted source for your vision God.

If there has been one thing this book has accomplished, it is to show that the mainstream approach to Christian living has failed to engage people. People do not want rock concerts or dead liturgy. They want real answers to real questions and a relationship with a real God. The fact that a book like this has spread like wildfire shows that the leaders within the church have failed to provide their people with a solid foundation in the Word. I am not one of those guys who advocates that the Bible is the only thing we should read. The Bible is not your book or my book, it is the book of the universal church. We do ourselves no favours by ignoring the wise men who have gone before us. We do need to be reading other books, and talking, and explaining and living and breathing in the Word. Read the books of battle-hardened warriors of the faith, take reading courses, buy dictionaries and commentaries, learn Greek (yes, you can!), but strive to know God's word! The Bible was not written to hide truth from us or confuse us. Because of the scope and breadth, it sometimes takes a long time and hard work, but the meaning of Scripture is not hidden to those who diligently set themselves to the work.

I hope that in the course of this review I have not come off as hating the idea of having a dynamic and imaginative relationship with God. I truly believe that this is what God desires. It is precisely because I do love these concepts that I think Young's book is harmful. I am saddened that it appears much of Christendom is willing to accept Young's explanation that the deadness and hypocrisy that is rife in the Church is due to holding too fast to a single standard of truth. The problem is in fact just the opposite – the Church experiences deadness and hypocrisy in direct proportion to the distance it has strayed from relating to God as he has revealed himself in the pages of the Holy Writ. Instead of seeing the Bible as the barrier between us and God, we need to realize that God invites us to experience life with him in the pages as they are revealed to us by his Holy Spirit. We need to stop viewing the Bible as a collection of confusing and archaic quotes, but instead as the revelation of God's story – a story which has a special and unique place for each of us in it. There is a deep and satisfying relationship to be had – but only with the God who exists, and who reveals himself in the pages of Scripture. We do not get another God – we must approach the one who is. Do not be disappointed, because he's far better, loving, and incredible than the ones we could imagine.

Here's the sermon I preached...

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:31:35 GMT

... well, most of it, anyway. I got into my introduction and realized after I had finished it that I forgot to start recording. Sooo... It sorta picks up after the introduction. I think you should be able to listen to it and get the point without the intro. I sorta messed up the beginning, anyway, so maybe it's fine.

Please leave me a comment - constructive criticism is coveted! Especially if you could point out anything I did that was distracting you or obscuring the main point of the message.

The text is Philippians 2:1-11:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Oh, and I had a really sore throat. Just so you know.

Something I found on my Hard Drive...

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:42:58 GMT

This is a bunch of thoughts I jotted down a while ago while I was doing a class on Systematic Theology. I think these notes are from a book I was reading by M. Loyd-Jones. Anyway, if you've ever wondered what an 'evangelical' is, well, now you have the Cole's Notes version.

WHAT IS AN EVANGELICAL?

An evangelical is a Christian who, first and foremost, places the word of God as the sole authority in his life. Evangelicalism is primarily a movement about the Bible. While it is not entirely true that an evangelical distrusts reason and philosophy entirely, he is incredibly wary of any reason or philosophy that does not take as it's primary and ultimate authority the written word of God. Recognizing that the truths contained in the Bible do not make immediate sense to us, the evangelical, instead of subjecting the Bible to his reason, subjects his reason to the authority of Scripture. The belief in Scripture is that it does not only contain God's word, but that it is God's word; that in it's entirety and in all areas it touches it is both authoritative and without error; that it is useful not only for faith and practice, but also gives us an authoritative description of real historical events that took place in time and space; that the word of God is self-authenticating and does not need the church to validate what is and is not scripture.

The second defining mark of an evangelical Christian is that he looks to history to help shape his understanding of his own faith. While he does not take historical practice as authoritative, he nonetheless allows it to influence his own beliefs and interpretations of Scripture. The evangelical walks a fine line when it comes to history; On the one hand avoiding the error of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches in placing tradition as authority on par with scripture, and on the other, avoiding the temptation to disregard 2000 (or, indeed 6000 or more) years of Christian belief. The evangelical recognizes that his is an historical religion, but as the Apostle John says, it is an old commandment as well as being a new, fresh, and active one (cf. I John 2:6-8).

A third distinguishing mark of the evangelical is that while maintaining those beliefs by which he can claim to hold the name 'evangelical', he is also careful to exclude those teachings which would seek to add something to that “which has been once for all delivered” (Jude 3). This means that he is not interested in only maintaining those positive statements of what he believes, but also entails negative statements stating what he does not believe.

Part and parcel with the last point, because the evangelical is fully convinced of the sufficiency of the revealed word of God, he seeks to guard against both adding or taking away from what is essential.

I feel the irrisistible urge...

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 06:40:51 GMT

... to write something here. I feel that I should try to write something profound or witty. That is sort of a problem, because whatever area of the brain is used for producing works that could deserve such a description has apparently taken a leave of absence. Or, perhaps I am coming to the realization that whatever that part of the brain is, I was born without it.Some might comment, parenthetically, that it's not merely a problem of part of the brain being left out, but the thing itself. But they are cruel detractors who... well, actually, live in my head. Which might explain their insight into the fact that there is nothing else in here. Hmmmm... This is a rather random rabbit-trail off of my already random rabbit trail.
Regardless, the desire to write something still remains, even if my wit and profundity don't. It must be admitted that after preparing a sermon for a few hours, I am allowed to have run out of profundity. As I write the word 'profundity', I am discovering that even if the thing signified by the collection of letters is nowhere to be found in my general vicinity, still, the actual word itself provides me with entertainment as I write it and pronounce it in my head. Profundity. It's a fun word to think about. An odd word, really. Say it slowly, and amuse yourself with the idea that so strange a sound should actually signify a meaning to our minds.

'Fridge' is another word I have long considered to be an odd word. I have no idea why. It simply strikes me as an odd sounding sound. Fridge. Except we say it more or less like, "Fuh-ridge" Except the 'Fuh' sound is said so quickly and subtly that we don't really realize we say it like that. In fact, I'm sure we'd protest loudly that we do not say it a bit funny. People are very sure that the way that they say it (it being any word, really) is the right way. I know because I had defend to what felt like an entire state full of people my correct pronunciation of the word 'Been'. This particular state seems to think that the proper pronunciation of this word is 'ben'. The proper pronunciation rhymes with 'Bean'. Anyway, they all know better. (Look for my book, "How to teach a Michigander to say 'Been' and 'Hockey'" at a store near you.)

Hmmm... Since I am on the theme of language, consider this idea for a moment: Rather than merely stopping to consider the strangeness of particular words, stop to consider the strangeness of words as an idea. Is it not strange that with noises produced by the manipulation of various body parts, or by means of making marks on various mediums - you can understand what I am saying? That I can, in a sense, I can give you a piece of my mind? It is something that we do so often that we do not stop sometimes to consider the extraordinary nature of what we so often do. Think about all the various ways of communicating that we have. Books, Blogs, Radio, Newspapers, CD's, Speeches, Billboards, and a whole host of mediums for telling eachother things. It really is not something we stop and think about every day, but really, why should there be such a thing as communication?

It is sort of interesting that many of the newer philosophies out there (which are really repackaged old philosophies) try to tell us that communication is meaningless; that words have no meaning; that in a purely materialistic, subjective world, we cannot have a meaningful exchange of ideas; we are all separate entities with no common grounds for an exchange for ideas; that communication is but a phantasm and a dream. We can laugh at them for attempting to communicate the idea of meaningless communication, but really, theirs is the universe that one might expect. An empty, cold, meaningless universe with no direction and purpose, with no communication or friendship or love - this we should expect to find if indeed the universe were all that there is.

Indeed, it should not be a surprising thing for no universe to exist. The surprising thing is that there is one. It should not be a surprising idea that there should be no communication. The remarkable thing is that, in fact, there is such a thing as communication. Now, we may not be very good at it and misunderstand eachother at times, but the principle still remains that you can understand what I am saying. Even when we try to live consistently with our naturalistic viewpoints that tell us that communication is meaningless, we in the end see that trying to live as though communication and words are meaningless, is somehow not consistent with the way we work. We may try to tell ourselves that communication is meaningless - yet we still communicate. We may try to tell ourselves that love is nothing but a chemical reaction - yet never was a scientist in love who felt it to merely be a chemical reaction in his brain. And this brings us to the point: Why, then, do we communicate?

The very simple answer to this is that God is a communicator. Long before you or I or anything else existed, there was communication between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the basis and foundation for our ability to communicate. Francis Schaeffer put it famously, 'He is there, and He is not Silent.' Being made in the image of God means that we are communicatory, verbal beings. This is the basis for me being able to write these words to you. This is the basis for Richard Dawkins communicating the blasphemies with which he denies the very one who makes it possible for him to communicate. You see, in his universe, one should not be able to communicate. There is only lonely, empty, meaningless existence. But we do communicate, and we know that words have meaning. Richard Dawkins' universe is a very sensible, proper and mechanical place. It is also an exceedingly boring and awfully dreadful place that can make no provision for communicating beings. This is why we shall soon find his ideas thrown out as man as tries to make room for man as true man in a universe that does not have God in it. It won't work. The Humanity of Humans is truly a vexing problem for those who would deny that God exists. Humans are only human as long as God is God. When we cease to acknowledge God for who he is and what he is, we cease to become human. Need we point out any time we look into History to see when atrocities have been committed, it is by those who have ignored who God is and thus have a distorted view of the worth of Humanity?

How much better it is to understand that God is not merely a crutch for the weak, but that He is the very basis for something as fundamental to humanity as communication. Better yet to realize that this same God who has given us the ability to communicate has communicated with us. I do not want to get all Evangelical-cliche happy on you, but stop to consider the absolute enormity of what the Christian faith claims: That the God of the Universe, the one who 'measures the waters of the earth in the hollow of his hand... who calls the stars out by name' has communicated to us in a book. In a collection of black marks on pieces of paper, he has revealed to us the nature of his character, his great love for us, his plan for the universe, and the beauty of his Son.
It is no wonder that God commands us to be either hot or cold. Now I start speaking to myself more than either of the two people who will be reading this: Either be like Richard Dawkins and dismiss the whole thing as absurd and untrue and try to live your life in a universe that has no place for you, or be a man (or woman) who burns to know the mind of God through his Word. Let's leave behind the silly halfway game that we all try to play. Either God is at the bottom of everything or he is at the bottom of nothing. By the fact that you know what it is I am saying, I say that you are left with but one intellectually honest conclusion: God is who he says he is, Christ is who he says he is, and you are who God says you are.

The point of all this communication stuff is not merely that God thought it would be useful for us to tell eachother that this or that Mushroom is really bad for you and that yes, that dress makes you look fat. His ultimate design for communication is the same as that of all his doings: that we may both savour him for all eternity, and that we ourselves reflect his character. That in whatever way possible we would both be seeing and being.

Goodnight!

Take this quiz...

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:32 GMT

... and see if you are a heretic! Of course, it could also simply mean that you are simply confused about a few things. Take it and see if maybe you need to brush up on your understanding of the Trinity.

What do you come back as? I'm 100% Chalcedonian compliant, if you are wondering

Take the quiz here

A nice picture

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:48:50 GMT

Not much, actually

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:05:13 GMT

Well, I have a bit of time so I will update for you. Not that you care. But anyway.

I'm at a friend's (ahem) house right now down in Michigan, but since she has a 30-page senior seminar paper to finish by tomorrow, and only has 10 pages done, so I can only occasionally bother her. Which is sort of annoying, because she's sitting on a couch just opposite me right now, studying, and the temptation to pester her is immense. But I'm resisting. Sort of. Did I mention that my friend is really quite an extraordinary person? Because she is... You should see her worldview lectures.

Anyway, um, well, what would you like to hear about? Something interesting happened to me while I was gone – I became an uncle to a new person. Which is good, but it also means I will have had to wait an entire month before I get to see him.

My ministry placement is going ok. So far. In that, I hope the actual week of the camp will be more interesting than the week of preparations at the office. Mainly because I got the sort of jobs that are usually mentioned along with the phrase, “Well, someone's got to do it!” Such as stuffing letters. It's good though for me to realize that ministry relies on that sort of thing, so that the teaching can be done. I just don't want to take up a full-time career designing promotional material.

The actual camp (it's called a camp only because they can't think of a better word) is at a College campus in Lansing, which is the Capital of Michigan. It's not a tremendously large city, but it is a pretty place. It is also home of Michigan State University, which is a very large campus indeed. Something I knew about Americans but didn't really realize was how seriously they take their collegiate sports. When I saw the College football stadium that held over 70,000 people, I think it sort of sunk in. Anywhoo, the camp is designed to teach kids how the legislative process works, and to encourage them to understand government from a Christian perspective, with a view to increase Christian influence in the way our countries are run. As I've been preparing, I've realized that the American system really is remarkably inefficient. It was designed to be inefficient, I think, and by gum, it has succeeded.

I'll have a more complete update for you... later. Or not. But mostly, I wouldn't want to traumatize you with the details of all the really interesting things going on. Which, are in fact only interesting to me anyway. So I'll spare you the details...

Yeah, I actually don't have much to say. Why was I writing this again? Oh, yeah, to keep myself occupied. But I DO miss you all. Just not enough to come back

So, here's the Arminian dating site...

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:07:36 GMT

Oh, wait. Or is that Armenian?

See? Spelling DOES matter...

More Church History!

Wed, 21 May 2008 23:14:18 GMT

Hooray! Seeing as how I am busy with several ministry opportunities (only one of which is metaphorically so...) I'll put up another church history article. Once again, I apologize for any strange formatting...

Oh, and if you think of it, please pray for the young men's Bible Study retreat, the Bible study, and the Sunday night meetings I am preaching at now. It's a lot of work, and I covet your prayers for me and for everyone else involved. It's hard work, but it is very rewarding.

PS - These are only given FWTW - there was a lot of info to be filled in by the lesson...

Church History Lesson # 3–Athanasius, Arius & Constantine

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

[Athanasius] stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, "whole and undefiled," when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those "sensible" synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away. - CS Lewis

Wherever a man turns his gaze he sees the Godhead of the Word and is smitten with awe.

-Athanasius

Introduction

When studying history and the different false teachings that arose, it becomes apparent that every false teaching can be divided into at least one of two categories: false teaching concerning the identity and nature of God, and false teaching concerning the identity and nature of mankind. While these false teachings arose in various forms throughout the persecution period, it was not until after Christianity was legalized that they formed a formidable problem to the very existence of the Church. These two categories reached their highest expressions in Arianism and Pelagianism, respectively. The Arian controversy involved the question concerning the nature of Christ; Was he like God, or was he God? The key player in this decades long theological battle was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. It is nigh well impossible to separate his name from the Orthodox understanding of Christ's nature.

History of Athanasius and the Arian Controversy. 298-378

298 Athanasius is born

311 Emporer Galerius dies

312 Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Bridge of Milvian
Issues the Edict of Milan, declaring Christianity to be a legal religion
Licinius defeats Maximin

319 Arius accuses Alexander, the Bishop of Alexander, of teaching Sabellianism.

321 Arius is stripped of his position by an Egyptian Synod

324 Constantine defeats Licinius; becomes sole emperor
Constantine writes to Alexander and Arius

325 Constantine calls the Council of Nicea

328 Alexander dies; Athanasius is Bishop in his stead.

335 Athanasius at Tyre to answer accusations against him; beginning of first exile

336 Arius dies

337 Constantine dies; Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II
Constantius allows Athanasius to return to Alexandria.

339 Athanasius flees Alexandria

346 Athanasius Returns to Alexandria

350 Constans is murdered

353 Council of Arles condemns Athanasius

355 Council at Milan condemns Athanasius

356 Athanasius' church is stormed; Athanasius flees to the desert
George is proclaimed Bishop of Alexander

361 Constantius dies
George is lynched

362 Julian the Apostate allows Athanasius to return
Julian the Apostate has Athanasius exiled

363 Julian dies
Athanasius returns to Alexandria

365 Athanasius is deposed again
Arian persecutions renewed

366 Athanasius restored

373 Athanasius dies

381 Council of Constantinople

What is the difference between Arianism and Christianity?

Christianity (Jesus is God)

Arianism (Jesus is like God)

- The Son has always existed.

- The Son is of the same essence as the Father; they are one and the same substance.

- The Son is very God.

- Is one with the Father in perfect communion and knowledge. There is nothing hid from the Son.

- Three persons, one God

- There was a time when the Son was not. He is God's creation.

- The Son is like the Father; they are of like substance and essence.

- The Son is called God, by virtue of his interaction with the divine nature.

- Does not know the Father perfectly; is not exhaustively acquainted with him

- One person, one God

What are the lessons we can learn from the life of Athanasius?

Doctrine worth defending is doctrine worth rejoicing over.

Right doctrine causes joy – Athanasius understood that right doctrine was life-giving and precious. For him, it was not an 'Ivory-towers' exercise. Athanasius did not stand up for the truth on account of intellectual stubbornness, but out of a delight in the very doctines which were under attack. He said,

“Let us be courageous and rejoice always. . . . Let us consider and lay to heart that while the Lord is with us, our foes can do us no hurt. . . . But if they see us rejoicing in the Lord, contemplating the bliss of the future, mindful of the Lord, deeming all things in His hand . . . —they are discomfited and turned backwards.”

If we are fighting for truth, ours ought to be one of joy in spite of hardship. If we are sour and hateful in controversy, we do not have a true grasp of truth. The Apostle Paul is an excellent example of this; there are many examples in his epistles where, as he is teaching, he is moved to raptures of worship. (Eph 3:14-20)

Bible language can hide un-Biblical lies.

Bible words do not ensure truth – The Arians were experts in disguising their beliefs in Bible words. They would affirm Bible verses, to the utter frustration of the orthodox party at Nicea. One of Satan's tactics is to come disguised as an angel of light (2Co 11:14), and he dresses up lies in true sounding language. This is the tactics of many cults and false religions today, including Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses
Bible words cannot be defined merely by Bible words – The Arians would attempt to take the moral high ground, by protesting against the introduction of any non-biblical terms (such as homoousion) that sought to clarify and define exactly what words such as 'begotten', 'firstborn' etc... meant. When the question is the very meaning of Bible words themselves, it is necessary at times to introduce non-biblical language to defend the Biblical meaning.

Loving Christ includes loving true propositions about Christ.

Christ has definite qualities – In today's world (as it was back then), it is a popular notion that “Christ unites, doctrine divides”. Athanasius would have been distraught to hear such ideas. Without doctrine concerning Christ and concerning salvation, we do not have a savior, but an empty word. It is only Christ as God who is sufficient to save; there is no other.

Truth must affect our lives if we hope to defend it.

True doctrine affects our lives – Put yourself in Athanasius' place for a moment. Would you have the courage to stand contra mundum, against the world? What was it that caused his willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel? His dedication had a twofold root:
- He realized the worth of doctrine – In his letter to the Bishop's in which he defends the Nicene faith, Athanasius comments, “We are contending for our all”. Athanasius was keenly aware that this doctrine concerning the person of Christ was central. If Jesus was not God incarnate, there was no salvation, no resurrection, no hope. This was not a pedantic debate wrangling over how many angles could dance on the head of a pin; this was a matter of salcation. Wrong belief in this area had the potential for sending souls to hell. Athanasius soldiered on for the same reason Paul did in II Tim 2:10: So I endure all things for the sake of those chosen by God, that they too may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus and its eternal glory.

It came from his knowledge of the word of God. - Do not underestimate the work of the Holy Spirit in discerning right doctrine. However, we often think the Holy Spirit acts by 'magic'. He does not. Instead, he enlivens the word of God so as to make the truth evident. Athanasius was not concerned with man's philosophy; His arguments were based on a solid understanding and grounding in the word of God. To be sure, he made logical, clear arguments, but they rested in a dedication to what God himself had revealed to men, not from what man deduced God should be like.

Truth must become our own – What does your faith rest on? Is it in the people around you and their acceptance of certain ideas? Is your faith solid enough that you would, against all opposition, continue steadfast in the things you have learned? Is our faith of the kind that we would stand up for it contra mundum?

For further study:

“On the Incarnation”- By Athanasius, w/ an introduction by CS Lewis. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Four discourses against the Arians - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2816.htm

“Contending for our all” - By John Piper http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1532_Contending_for_Our_All/