Stress Less, Love More.

What if we didn’t live in a world of expectations? What if we really lived in the freedom of love? In every situation where the expectancy of being treated with respect, love, and care there would be the very real possibility of being harmed. But is that in itself a bad thing?

We live under more stress today than ever before. President Obama may get re-elected, or he might not get re-elected. Iran may get a nuclear weapon, or it might not. We might lose our Constitutional freedoms or not. The United States, as we have known it, may cease to continue or it might not. You might get sick, injured, laid off, or a myriad of other worries that may or may not happen yet cause us to live in stress. What if we just let it go?

The religious world is not so dissimilar to these woes. You father, mother, brother, sister, or other friend or relative may “accept Jesus,” or they may not. We stress over their eternal well being. We stress over our own. But is that what Jesus said we should do? 

In John 16:33 he says plainly, “In this world you will have tribulations.” WILL have them. There is no getting away from them. They hit Donald Trump and Bill Gates every bit as much as they hit you or me. What do we do when that happens?

In another place he tells us to ask the Father, “Give us THIS day our DAILY bread.” Well that’s awfully short-sighted of him. What about tomorrow’s bread? What about next week’s? What about laying up for ourselves enough frozen dough that we will have bread available when we retire? What about bread for your daughter’s college? Or her wedding? That will take some dough, won’t it?

Jesus also tells us that “the Father sees you needs even before you ask.” So then why ask? Why pray? Why believe? It is solely to learn to trust that Papa, to use the imagery Paul Young evokes in The Shack, and his love for you. 

His love is unconditional. We have been taught this “karma” version of faith that denies the Father’s love.  We are told, “If you do good things, things that God likes, then good things will happen to you. But if you do BAD things, look out brother! God will be gunning for you.” 

Yet in all that Jesus said, he never once made that connection, drew that picture of the Father. Nowhere does he say that the Father requires your obedience BEFORE he will save you, provide for you, protect you. Jesus says about the Father, “If you, who are evil, are able to give good gifts, HOW MUCH MORE will your Father in Heaven provide for you oh you of LITTLE faith.” If God had to wait for us to be good to care for us, he’d never have to worry about providing even on little thing. Jesus calls us those “who are evil.” What chance do we have of earning anything?

Stress less, love more. If you don’t know how you are going to pay the bills, provide groceries, pay the doctor, find a job, or anything else, ask your Father for what you need TODAY and what you would like to do. But then let it go. Every day we should ask for our DAILY bread. But even then, he is gracious enough to see to our needs if we forget. Trust your Eternal Father. He loves you. He always will.

 

Why Churches Needs to Stay Out of Politics While Its People Get Involved

I am going to try to write this blog from as objective a point of view I can without giving away my own personal political positions. I think it is more helpful that I not try to persuade anyone to go one way or another. I wish it was that way with more Christian leaders.

I am writing this in part because of a bone-headed comment made last week by a Louisiana pastor. I don’t know how any one who claims Christian leadership can maintain his credibility by saying, “If you don’t like America get out. We don’t believe in Buddha or Allah. We believe in Jesus Christ.” If this were a hundred years ago when my grandparents first arrived from Sicily, I could understand it; not accept it. 

Back then there was a lot of social change that had yet to occur. African-Americans were not treated as equals to whites. (FYI, Italians were considered the missing link between whites and “negroes.” Look it up.) Jim Crow laws were still very much in effect. It was due to ignorance, we all know. Much of the government was run by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in both parties. Catholics were only a strong voice in the Northeast and we hadn’t yet had a Catholic President. 

Back then when it was patriotic to be part of the Ku Klux Klan. Back then the world was seen through the ofttimes bigoted eyes of newsreels in the movies. We knew little about “far away lands” and even less about their peoples. Myopia is a difficult thing to get rid of. It takes not only education, but contact with different people from different backgrounds, cultures, and, yes, even languages for us to overcome our fears of what “those people” are about. 

But we are two generations away from the first Catholic President and the Civil Rights Era. We are three generations away from desegregated schools and four generations away from the end of baseball’s “color barrier.” Much of the fear and ignorance is gone, but based on that pastor’s comments, much still remains.

But let’s just for a moment even consider his comments from, say a scriptural point of view. First of all, for whom did Jesus vote, or give his endorsement as a candidate? Was Paul on the left or right of the political spectrum? Why do we insist that Jesus was either a Republican or a Socialist? Jesus was apolitical because he could see how this would divide people. Plus being God incarnate kinda made politics pointless. 

Pastors and churches need to just shut up when it comes to politics. Yes, Jesus is anti-abortion, but, yes, Jesus was pro-feeding-the-poor. Our responsibility as the Church of the Risen Savior is not to promote one candidate over another, or one ideal over another unless it is the living out of the gospel. This political system is man-made, not God-ordained. Kingdom living doesn’t involve the continuation of the U.S.A, England, France, New Zealand or any country but living as strangers and sojourners in the lands we call home. 

That being said, it is also important that we get involved, at least I can speak for life in the U.S., in the selection of the candidate or candidates we INDIVIDUALLY believe will help us put the gospel agenda forward. Notice I didn’t say, “do it for us.” Scripture is pretty clear that in our support of the leaders of our respective lands that we pray for them and for the peace to preach the gospel without hindrance. That should be the point and focus of our ever getting involved in the political process. I have my ideas on that. You should have yours. But it is not to be spewed in a rant from the pulpit. That arena has a different agenda.

Churches were even more segregated than they are today.

 

When Not To Write

A woman who is a friend of mine asked me a couple of weeks ago, “Why don’t you write something on your blog? You need to write something.” Admittedly it had been awhile since I last posted. But the fact is, I wasn’t and I am still not feeling it. Even now getting the words out is labored. There is no free flow.

So I had a talk with the Holy Spirit about it and asked, “Why am I not writing as much or as often as I used to? Why am I not feeling it?” The answer was soft and simple, “Because I’m not ready yet,” he said. So that’s it in a nutshell. I am not writing because the Spirit is not ready to “open my eyes” yet as to what to write about.

I can tell it’s Him because I have plenty to write about: What is the root cause of all sin? Or “If Jesus took all sin and put it to death on the cross, why am I still good at it?” I have that one outlined. Another thought is “if not all will enter into the Kingdom,” (see various places in the gospels where Jesus says that), “how can you say that all humanity is saved in Jesus?” A third thought is on a really deep theological issue that while I don’t have a problem with it, it will take awhile to wrap my mind around it. So I won’t even give you a tease about it. Finally, there’s relating the story of my buddy Cliff and his journey in faith when he lost his job several months ago. So material is not the issue.

The issue is that I am learning to rely on the movement of the Spirit to guide me in all things I do. Being the impatient, capricious person I am, I get in a lot of trouble. I have learned over the years to rest in the Holy Spirit of God to guide me on what things to do and what things to let lie. So this is one of those times. Please allow me that space to just let the Spirit do what He’s going to do and I promise, at some point I will come back to write. Ooh ! I just thought of another topic: “Why are churches that say they are ‘relational’ keeping me from relating?”

Be back soon.

 

What is “truth”?

I deliberately chose an honest, challenging question asked of Jesus by Pilate as the Savior stood before him. It’s a good question: “What is truth?” It’s a question Jesus didn’t answer. As Pilate turned and said to the ravenous crowd, “I find no fault in this man,” Jesus didn’t interrupt and say, “Wait! Wait! I have an answer! I can tell you what truth is!” It is curious that there is no answer.

It plagues humanity this question of what truth is. There are searches and pilgrimages made to get at the truth. Philosophy majors will tell you that truth is either subjective or objective. Some will say there is no objective truth only subjective truth, that is the definition of truth can change over time, culture and context. Is that true?

Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Is that the answer? It’s a good canned answer that many of my Christian brothers and sisters will often give in this situation, but does it answer, first of all, what truth is and, secondly, whether it is subjective or not? Christians will state the truth that Jesus is the Savior. I for one would agree with that statement. But there are around 5.5 billion or more people out there who would question that. There are probably at least another billion people who existed before we did some of whom would also question whether Christ is the Savior. Does that allow a kernel of subjectivity to suddenly enter in?

Truth is slippery at best. Intuitively, we know it exists, but much like trying to draw a summer breeze, it is difficult to describe. Scripture tells us that it is the Holy Spirit who will guide us, lead us in all truth. It is this ethereal nature of truth that makes it more a matter of faith than science. It must be given to us, not obtained. We must question and search for it.

Speaking of science and truth, who leads the scientist to discovery? The very nature of humankind is to be curious of our surroundings. It has always been that way. If gravity, for example, is a an objective, absolute truth, that is it does not change over time, culture, and context, why were we so curious to discover that? Why did Galileo and Newton even care? Why do we even care about knowing more?

We are constantly, all everywhere, curious about our surroundings. Why do the seasons change? Why are they virtually opposite from Northern Hemisphere to Southern Hemisphere? In that regard, is it better to spend Christmas on the beaches the the Gold Coast or have a “white Christmas”? Why do tulips lie dormant during the winter and blaze beautiful in the spring? Why does a combustion engine work and why does it seem to work best using fossil fuels? Why am I asking why?

It is given to us to follow the one who is leading us to the truth. It is a journey. Sometimes we get things right and other times not so much. Here is a simple guideline for deciding truth: Truth is only objective and absolute. If it isn’t, it isn’t truth. For example, it was once believed as truth that the negro (yes, I am deliberately using an ancient word to highlight my point) was not capable of much more than manual labor because of having a less developed brain. Today we are more Jeffersonian, and just plain more aware, that “all men are created equal.” We no longer believe the former truth that the sun revolves around the earth or the former truth that Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world. They were never true and as such could never be considered truth.  the nonsense of “it’s true for you or me” is hogwash.  If it is not true at all times in all cultures and contexts it is not truth.

So feel free to start asking the questions that are burning in your heart. Start searching and testing “truths.” There is One who is guiding you. Question everything: God, church, life, job, purpose. You cannot satisfy your soul if you are not questioning and searching, and that’s the truth.

 

If it’s not that, then what IS Christmas all about?

It’s December 24th. I’ve done my last minute frantic Christmas shopping, but I know there are still a ton of people, mostly guys, who will be out shopping for their last minute Christmas gifts. On the radio and on Facebook Christmas music will be played and greetings will be shared.  You probably have noticed and will also continue to read or hear, thankfully only until tomorrow at midnight, tales of what Christmas is NOT about. We are all very well versed, having heard or read a jillion of these things, on all the things Christmas isn’t. So I thought I would write this little post to take the major ones and give some background to them. Then I will take the time to give what I feel is the major point about Christmas and why it can affect how we see the day going forward.

What Christmas isn’t #1: A God-commanded holiday.

This is true. You can comb the Bible from Genesis to maps and you won’t find any command to celebrate it. This is true. This is also true of birthdays and anniversaries. Guys, how long do you think you could get away with not remembering or celebrating those days? The point is that we celebrate a great many things like weddings (uh, the wedding at Cana was 3 days long), retirement, and the expectation and/or arrival of a baby, that are not “commanded by God.” Yet few have a problem with any of these celebrations. And regarding things commanded by God, wait until later in this post. Which brings us to…

What Christmas isn’t #2: Christmas is a pagan holiday.

True, at least in the sense that the roots of the day are found in pagan celebration. Some of the earliest accounts of Christian missionaries in northern Europe give accounts of pagan celebrations with decorated trees (no that’s not what is talked about in Jeremiah, for those who are thinking that), burning yule logs, etc. The missionaries asked for and received permission to adapt these pagan symbols for the season and point them to Jesus.  Pagan symbolism has often been adopted by the Church and even by God himself to try to express things for us humans to understand. For example, we use wedding rings and neckties, to name a few. With regard to some of the things mentioned and used by God himself in dealing with Israel we have priests, altars, and animal sacrifices. When we consider the life of Abram/Abraham and look at some of the things he did, who told him to do it? When he leaves Ur and then Haran and comes to Canaan he builds an alter and makes a sacrifice to God. Who told him to? God didn’t. Was that sacrifice not accepted by God because it wasn’t commanded? When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, why did he not hesitate? Perhaps it was because some of the pagan gods were already asking for human sacrifice, so why not God? All of this gets around the point that we aren’t celebrating a pagan god on Christmas but the coming of the Son of God.

What Christmas isn’t #3: It is not Jesus’ birthday.

True. We don’t know when Jesus was born. But what real harm is there in telling a 3-year-old Christmas is like a birthday for Jesus? We are celebrating a birthday, of sorts. It is simplistic to say that is what the day is about, but the fact is Jesus was born and whether we celebrate it December 25 or September 14 or any other day doesn’t matter. For Christians it is a time of remembrance, not cake and candles.

There are other complaints on why Christmas isn’t what it once was or ever should have been. It is commercial. It is overextended. It is about measuring who gets what from whom and all that. But is all that reason to just give up on what Christmas is?

So then what IS Christmas? The miracle of Christmas is that God, in an expression of his boundless love for us, came to be exactly like us. Now I want all you Greek and pagan mythologists to stop drooling about similarities. They are not the same. In the mythological accounts the gods they put on humanity, or a human-like appearance in order to fulfill some whim. When the Word of God became flesh, he became exactly like us without losing his divinity. God who is outside creation and history became creation and entered history inside Jesus Christ. It is that Incarnation that we celebrate on Christmas. In this one act of divine grace God gathered all of creation to himself to save it by his love. I won’t take the time here to go further into Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension and all that it means, for my focus is solely on Christmas. Christmas is the first place we get to celebrate God’s love for us.

Jesus told us, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.” In all things, on all days we are to express that love to all humanity. Christmas is but one day of expressing that love. Whether it is in sharing gifts with each other, gathering in church or around a table, serving turkey to someone less fortunate, or with quiet heart in prayer for someone dying of starvation thousands of miles from where we find ourselves, each of  these is an expression of Christ’s love living in us and through us. For those of you who want commandments, there you have it. But what good is love if it is only expressed as a result of command. Unless you live in a box on a deserted island and practice your self loathing in a mirror in a cave, you will be celebrating Christmas tomorrow whether you know it or not. His love will come out in some way. Even if it is just love for yourself. Christmas lives in us whether we like it or not for Christ lives in us whether we like it or not. You might as well enjoy it, Scrooge.

So there you have it: Christmas IS about love entering into the world to conquer us. May it conquer us all on this Christmas.

Merry Christmas to all!!

Love,

Frank

 

Relationships and the Problem of Trust

Often I get really deep theologically. I’ll sit and be reading Athanasius, Torrence, or some such theologian and start to ponder the depth of what I have been reading and coming to understand. But this post, like the last, is more about musing over something seemingly simple that just doesn’t work the way I’ve been told it should.

For example, I wrote my most recent blog on how a relationship with Jesus the way most Evangelicals live it out is not a relationship at all but, I don’t know, a system? Love doesn’t exist systemically. You can never say A+B+C= love. Therefore, since love is the core foundation of relationship you can’t systematically produce a relationship, which is really going to deflate the egos of some Christian writers who have written books and the like to teach you the 7 Tricks to a Great Marriage or some such stupidity.

Relationship can only happen when two or more open themselves to one another for discovery and then grow to trust one another. Trust is the key link in the chain. It can be its strongest or weakest, however. I’m stealing a line here from another blog, though not its content or context. I just thought it a cool and really eyeopening line. So our relationships are only as strong as the trust we have for the other person.

If you’ve ever been to one of those discovery camps that help you grow together as a group by going on zip lines or rock climbing or other obstacles that have to be traversed together, they try to teach you to trust your partner. It is as if by some magic spending a day or two with someone you work with is actually going to cause you to really trust them. That kind of induced trust is like when you were in school. You learned, more like memorized, what you needed to know, regurgitated it on a test and promptly forgot it all. At those camps you do what is necessary because that is what they are asking, but you’re not growing in relationship. Sure I will catch you when you close your eyes and lean back. But I am doing it for two reasons: 1) I really don’t like to see anyone get hurt and 2) because I’ll look like a real jerk if I DON’T catch you. No relationship there.

In our personal Christian reality do we really trust Christ with everything or do we just say it like the answers on an Algebra test? We don’t want to look like heathen jerks so we repeat the mantra and all is well, until it isn’t.

Here is a confession of sorts to explain: I have been really struggling with a particular sin issue in my life. I prayed that the Lord would work in me to transform me so that sin wouldn’t rear its ugly head again. I could see all the exit signs for getting away from it. For days I took the off ramp and ran as far as I could from it.

Then I fucked up. I know that some of you have now been offended and may never read my blog again. But what do you call it when you decide willfully and deliberately to do that which you have been fighting against?

The frustration and guilt that swelled over me threatened to tear me to shreds emotionally. It was like the first time I got pummeled by the West Coast surf as the tide came in. It was a helpless feeling of being slammed to rocky, shell-filled floor only to be lifted up and slammed again.

Then I got on Facebook. That’s random, eh? On FB I saw that my friend had posted a link to a blog. Now the blog was specifically about evangelism and how burdens of conditional salvation are placed on people leading them even after conversion to wonder about whether the salvation experience they had had actually took, was it real or would God take it back.

What Jesus did he did once for all. Jesus did not come to die for our sins only. He did not become some sort of super-man who was not really one of us. Jesus entered into our darkness, our pain, our fear and lived in our humanity and did what we cannot do: live it sinlessly.

That is where trust comes in. If I really believe he loves me. If all that I have grown to know about this man is true, then he forgave me before I could say, “I fucked up again.” By the way, he’s ok with you expressing it that way. Jesus is living his life in me confronting me with my weaknesses and my doubts all the while saying, “Trust me.”

If you are struggling with trust issues like me examine the link. I think you’ll be surprised by something. It is not our link of trust that this relationship is founded on. It is his. His trust, his faith is what keeps this relationship together. That’s why the Apostle Paul could say in Romans 7, “Who shall save me from this body of death? Thank God Almighty, through Jesus Christ.”

 

The Quandry of a Personal Relationship with God

You must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Isn’t that what we are told? Isn’t that the basis of current concepts of evangelism? But what exactly does that mean?

I can’t seem to really find much in popular Christian writing that shows me I am to have a personal relationship. I have a personal relationship with my wife for nearly twenty-seven years, twenty-five of them in marriage. If I was to relate to my wife the way I am told to relate to Jesus in those books, we would have divorced years ago. I am told I should spend a minimum of thirty minutes talking to my wife. I should commit ten percent of my income to my wife on which to build our relationship. I should make it a point to follow as prescribed set of rules of obedience (something I’m sure she would love on the surface) to prove my love for her and to cause her to love me. Is it just me or does that sound completely ridiculous? Then why do we apply it to our relationship with our Lord, our Lover?

Quite simply, relationships are messy. I could  not have imagined what I have experienced as she and I have grown together all this time. There is discovery, weakness, argument, pain, joy, fear and confusion all wrapped up into one sloppy package. Why do we expect clear sailing and constant upward growth if only we would apply certain biblically identifiable principles? Which of us has experienced that in loving another human being? Sometimes there is disagreement. Sometimes there is acting the fool. Sometimes there is being on the receiving end of someone’s anger, anguish and insecurity. To have a relationship is be there, present, faithful and honest. Relationships are sticky, wonderful messes. I would not trade the years with my wife for anything. I want to look back on my years with Jesus similarly.

We struggle sometimes with the idea of expressing to Jesus what we would have no problem expressing to anyone else. Why do we treat Him as untouchable? Why is he handled with white gloves? John’s first epistle even starts with the idea the Jesus is the God “our hands have touched.” He is real and understands and never leaves. That’s the kind of relationship that can be built upon.

Look, after thirty years as a follower and believer, and twelve years as a minister and pastor I am just embarking on this journey of a personal relationship with him. It is truly scary. There will be no church to hide in. There will be no books to fall back on; even the Scripture will be useless without first trusting the author to show me what I need to know and when I need to know it. I will have friends He will put around me, but still the journey is mine ALONE.  No one can experience what I am experiencing. Maybe I am just understanding when Jesus told John and Andrew, “Can you drink from the cup I drink from?” His walk with His Father, our Father, was his alone in the flesh.

I’ll keep you posted. I don’t expect this will be easy and that honestly scares the crap out of me. I can relate what I go through for the sake of what you might. Please pray. This is exciting but equally scary. Trust has to be a personal day-by-day growth path.

 

The Shack: Mark Driscoll is Sincerely Wrong Part Three

Several months back I started a blog series on a sermon I saw given by Mark Driscoll on the book The Shack, by Paul Young. Mr. Driscoll made 3 basic charges against the book to his congregation: 1) The Shack taught graven image worship (See part 1 of this series),  2) The Shack taught modalism (See part 2) and 3) The Shack teaches goddess worship. It is on this last charge that I want to end this series.

I won’t spend a great deal of time on this as the assertion is so ludicrous as to not really warrant a detailed response. Let’s address the charge with a very simple thing. If you have read the book you know that Mack, the main character is stunned in Chapter 5 when he is met at the door of the shack by an African-American female. Mack grows to love Papa, our black female God, over the course of the book. She appears to him in this way, Papa tells him, because he had had such a terrible relationship with his biological father. There is, in other words, a method to Papa’s “madness”. He wanted to meet Mack in his pain in a way that didn’t make it worse, and Mack responded.

Is Pastor Driscoll, are we so blind to the feminine characteristics of God as to take on the idea that God is a male? Seriously? Let me ask a simple biblical (not theological) question to all or any of you: When God made Eve in his image and likeness, what model did he use if not himself? Should we re-translate the Scripture to say, “In the image of God made he him but NOT HER”?

Whatever will Pastor Driscoll do when he finds out that when Papa and Mack head up the mountain to locate Missy’s broken body, that Papa suddenly appears as a man. Will he accuse Paul Young of making God transgender? The point is that God will meet us where we are in anyway that will help us feel his draw to him.

Let’s take a quick peek at Sarayu, the other “goddess.” Notice the way Mr. Young describes her. She is wispy, almost lighter than air. He writes that Mack has a difficult time even seeing her. So the focus that he puts on the character ISN’T that Sarayu is a woman, but more like the air, a breeze, a breath. If you don’t give the Holy Spirit (Sarayu) some anthropomorphic (human-like) qualities, how do you describe one’s interaction with the wind? Yet the Holy Spirit does definitely interact with us at the relationship level. I think a female-esque image is perfect, I’ll explain.

Let me give you a quick mind picture. If you’ve never seen a Grace Kelly movie before, take the time to watch one. Notice the way she moves across a room. She floats, she glides. It’s as if she is riding on a breeze. Can you honestly name a guy whom you would describe that way? So from an imagery point of view, describing the Holy Spirit in female, Grace Kelly-like terms seems natural.

So what’s left that could possibly be used in any way as goddess worship in the book?

Now let me add something that we as Christians have to take to heart. We have GOT to stop discounting the role of women in the Scripture and in the delivery of the Gospel. This is what we do when we insist that God is male and even sometimes when we insist he is genderless. God being genderless doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any masculine or feminine traits. It is not ungodlike to appreciate the gifts that are held most often by women. Women are the nurturers. They are the relationship builders. They are the healers, not literally, but how many kids go running to daddy when they skin their knee?

Women balance out us men. For myself, when I go on one of my prolific, insightful rants, my wife patiently listens to what I say and then calmly asks, “Are you finished? Good. Now let me tell you the other side.” That’s what I mean: balance. They get that balance from their heavenly Father who made them in His image and likeness.

In the Scripture a woman was judge over Israel. It was a woman (Ruth) who teaches us the point of loyalty and a woman (Esther) who teaches us about sacrifice. It was God’s plan to have a woman bear the incarnate Lord and it was women who first learned about and reported the resurrection of Jesus. Let us not mistake the contributions of women to God’s story with us. Let’s not concern ourselves with human gender issues in our description of God, I’d be willing to bet that God isn’t worried about it at all.

 

The Shack – Mark Driscoll Is Sincerely Wrong – Part 2

On April 8, 2008 Mark Driscoll began a series on the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. He wanted to make sure that the people of his church were not deluded by what has often plagued by yet another fad.

In my last post I responded to the idea that The Shack teaches graven image worship. I mentioned that the idea of God being part of creation is exactly what happened in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. God in his fullness (Colossians 1:19) dwelled in Jesus and became one with all creation. It could not be any other way. The question of whether an image of God can be created and whether it is graven image worship was answered at the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD. Images CAN be used to tell the story of the Gospel. It has been a part of the theology of the Church for some 1300 years; and thank God for it! Without it we wouldn’t have Michelangelo’s great painting in the Sistine Chapel, which I saw in its magnificence in 1992. Pastor Driscoll’s pointing to the Puritans in his defense of his point denies the history of the development of the doctrines of the Church. Now don’t get me wrong. As I have named this series and stated in the first post I think Mark Driscoll, an otherwise wonderful minister, is sincere, but sincerely wrong. He is not ignorant except in his not seeing or understanding where our doctrine of the Trinity came from and what it actually is as stated in the Nicene Creed.

In this post I want to answer the charge of The Shack promoting modalism or Sabellianism. Sab-what?!! Sabellius was a third century priest and theologian. His major belief was that the only true God was God the Father. That is why some call modalism or Sabellianism Monarchianism, that God the was the one, true Monarch of heaven. Jesus and the Holy Spirit, were just modes or sides of God the Father manifested in different situations. However, Sabellius believed Jesus and the Father are united as one person. I know, confusing.

Right from the top it would seem that the charge of modalism in The Shack couldn’t possibly be true because of the manifestation of two or more of the three persons simultaneously. There are scenes of meals where all three are together with Mack. There is a communion scene where all three are together with Mack. It would seem to me that if modalism was what was being taught, you would never have more than one of them in a scene at a time.

How about the idea of them being “three”? One of the proofs Sabellians (the modern Oneness movement in some charismatic churches) use is that the only number used for God mentioned in the Scriptures is “one.” Now remember, Trinitarians believe that God is one. We also believe God is three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The concept of the Trinity took so long to develop as a doctrine is that they needed to make sure to maintain the concept of the one God as described in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6. However, the other thing they couldn’t deny was that God had manifested himself as the Son, the Father who loved him and the Spirit who is our Advocate. So how could God be both 1 and 3? I will try to explain.

In John 1:1 we see two images of God. One is called God and the other the Logos or Word. John the Apostle somehow knew that Jesus, the one whom he ate with and saw rise to the “right hand of the Father,” was also God. He knew it by what Jesus said. He knew it by what he witnessed Jesus do.  He knew it because Jesus left no doubt that he was DIFFERENT than the Messiah anticipated by the Jews. He also mentions the coming of the Holy Spirit. So as Desi Arnez used to say, “You have some “splaining” to do.”

Enter the theologians. Over the course of the next 300 or so years men who spent their time reading and re-reading the Scriptures started to see that there was obviously a change going on in the idea and concept of God. Just having Jesus around made things complicated. Here was one who was obviously to be worshiped and was being worshiped, but the Scriptures said that none but the one God was to be worshiped.

Here is a sort of time line of development:

• John’s Gospel: circa 90 AD – defines Jesus as the Word, the Creator, become flesh
• Ignatius of Antioch: circa 107 AD states Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God (letters to the Ephesians and Symaeans)
• Polycarp, Bishop of Antioch: circa 150 AD states that to not confess Christ is to be at odds with God as is Satan
• Justin Martyr: circa 155 AD proclaims the Word made flesh is at the same level as God (On the Resurrection)
• Irenaeus of Lyons: circa 180 AD states that Jesus (as the Word) always existed, something that is only true of God (Against All Heresies)
• Clement of Alexandria: circa 200 AD attributes the forgiveness of sins with Jesus’ action on the cross when forgiveness is only given by God (see Exhortation to the Heathen, Stromata and Fragments)

I think you get the picture. I have not yet said anything about Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers or Hillary of Poitiers. I would recommend you read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word as a great expose on basic Christian belief of who Jesus is and what he has done for humanity.  But suffice it to say that this section shows a clear, constant, historical development by the Church of the doctrine of the Trinity. So God is truly 1 in 3 and 3 in 1.

But the key issue is can the Father and Spirit be manifested among us along with Jesus. Only speculation is available. For one thing, the scripture from Colossians 1 I mentioned above points to the fact that where Jesus is, so are the Father and Spirit. Then there is the visit of the 3 to Abram in the desert, 3 whom Abram fell down to worship. Was that the Trinity coming to visit? Certainly there was a tie in to God. I’m not sure it was angels because Scripture also shows how angels will not allow themselves to be worshiped. But again, it is speculation, not abject fact.

The early church did talk in great detail about the concept of homoouision, or interpenetration of the Father, Son and Spirit into each other such that they are one at all times while each remaining distinct; that where one is, all are. By having them sitting in 3 chairs at dinner with Mack is Paul Young stating that that is how the Trinity exists in itself? That’s a stretch. If he did, I would have to agree with Mark Driscoll. But I think Pastor Driscoll used some mighty great spin to make his point, not theological reality. In fact, all Pastor Driscoll would have had to do is pick up the phone and call Paul Young, or Facebook message him to ask if he was saying that Papa, Jesus and Sarayu were each manifestations of God at some time. I’m sure Mr. Young would have said, “Absolutely not!”

OK. So we’ve shown that The Shack does not promote graven image worship. Nor does it promote modalism. I want to reiterate that while Pastor Driscoll’s concern that his church should stick to solid doctrine is a valid one, and while his passion for correctness is not to be disparaged or discounted, as is evident in some of the responses left at the You Tube location for the video, what I have been examining in the light of the Scripture and Christian theology are the charges he makes. Those charges lead to his central charge that The Shack teaches heresy. So in my final post in this series, I will take a look at the last charge, that of goddess worship.

 

The Shack: Mark Driscoll is Sincerely Wrong – Part One

On April 8, 2008 Mark Driscoll began a series on the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. He wanted to make sure that the people of his church were not deluded by what has often plagued by yet another fad.

Over the last 10 years since I became an elder and pastor in my denomination I have seen, participated in and fallen prey to a number of fads. I fell for the Contagious Christian fad, the Purpose Driven fad, the Prayer of Jabez fad and even the WWJD fad that hit the church over that time. Mark wisely and sincerely does not want the members of his church to follow a fad that would lead them down a fruitless path.

I would agree with him that the phenomenon that is Paul Young’s The Shack can be viewed as yet another fad. It can be viewed as pop theology for the unsuspecting not dissimilar to the recent speculation on “hidden truths” supposedly unveiled by The daVinci Code and The Gospel of Judas. So again I say that Mark Driscoll is sincere in his desire to protect his church from doctrinal error. Unfortunately, he is sincerely wrong.

He is wrong in his assessment of The Shack as a book full of heresies and, frankly, wrong in some of his theology that leads to his assessments. It is my purpose in this series to write about where he is wrong and to lead to a stronger theology than what he offered. Again, I believe he is sincere and probably, like all good pastors, trimmed away what is a voluminous amount of information in trying to pare down his sermon to a mere 1 hour and 3 minutes. But in the paring is crucial truth that has been omitted.

Allegation 1: The Shack teaches graven image worship
The first thing that Mr. Driscoll claims is that The Shack, in portraying the Father out to be a black female and the Holy Spirit out to be an Asian or Eurasian female is creating a situation where “the invisible God is made visible and the Creator God is part of Creation.” I really think that he just has a problem with imagery.

Has God portrayed himself in the Scriptures in physical ways to help us to understand facets of his incomprehensible being? Absolutely. God has portrayed himself as three strangers to Abraham, a burning bush to Moses, a still, small voice to Elijah, a dove to the witnesses of Jesus’ baptism, a voice to the disciples and tongues of fire to those present at Pentecost. Which of these is who God really is? This is a foolish question, I know, for these are manifestations for our understanding and does not portray God as he is in himself. It is no different in The Shack.

On page 95, at least in my copy, Papa, the black female representing the Father states that he is revealing himself to Mack in this way for Mack’s well being, not because that is who God is in himself. Graven image worship, as described in the Scriptures occurs when men say, “God is…” a Golden Calf, or a man with a dog head or this thing or that thing, and worship what clearly has come out of creation as though it was the immutable God himself. Mack isn’t making God into a black female, neither is Paul Young. In this fictitious story, God is portraying himself this way to actually help Mack understand that our images of God are NOT who he is in himself. Papa is trying to destroy some of the graven images we HAVE made of God in the Christian Church over the years. Is God white with a long flowing beard? Yet ask most Christians what image comes up in their minds when asked what God looks like and that is the answer you will get.

Mr. Driscoll also states that making the Creator part of Creation is also graven image worship. Problem here is that is exactly what God has done in having the Word become flesh. (John 1:1-3,14) If God does not attach himself to Creation in Jesus Christ, if Christ is not both fully God and fully man, then our salvation is not done. And it is not just men that Jesus is redeeming, it is the whole of Creation, which was equally affected and fallen when Adam sinned. The Creator entered Creation in order to unite it to him and fix it.

A simple glance at the four Gospels and we see that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy, for claiming he is the one, true God. The concept of Trinity, where God is 3-in-1 and 1-in-3, was not defined in its entirety until 300 years after Jesus. It was a 300 year process of discovery which included not recognizing Jesus as God for the first 30 or 40 years after Jesus’ ascension. When the writings of the New Testament started to appear, one can see a progression of God’s revelation to the early Church.

But the fact is that the Creator of the Universe (John 1:3), the one who was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2), became flesh. That is the doctrine of the Christian Church as stated in the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed of the 4th Century. So for over 1600 years we really have believed that the Creator is part of the Creation.

Theology Warning: Some of what is presented here may cause you to say, “Wow!”
OK, now for some serious theology. Mr. Driscoll presented some serious history of the Church and the formation of its doctrines in a very condensed form that, unfortunately, left out some important players and information.

First let me say that what Augustine wrote about the Trinity (de Trinitas) was NOT the seminal treatise on the Trinity. Much of what became the doctrine of the Trinity was forged over hundreds of years and first codified in the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed, much of which was written by Athanasius, not Augustine. Some clarification of the doctrine or its parts was done by the Cappadocian Fathers and certainly one key piece, perichoresis (how each persona of God interpenetrates the others such that where one persona is present, the other two are also fully present), was added 300 years after Augustine’s treatise by John of Damascus. Even this says nothing of the work of Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Calvin or Hillary to name a few. In modern times, much of the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity has been revived under Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics and the work of the Torrence brothers, James and Thomas. There are others still whom I haven’t mentioned who will help carry Trinitarian theology to people in this century.

The key things to remember in creating a Trinitarian theology of God is first and foremost, “Who is Jesus?” and “Who is God?” I would point Mr. Driscoll to two things in the Scriptures, one which he raised and the other which he neglected: 1) God is Spirit (John 4) and 2) God is love. (1 John 4:8) These are the only two definitive “God is” statements in the Scriptures. These are the only two that describe God in his being (ousia) and not his actions which come out of his being. All theologies must reconcile themselves to these.

What these men discovered was that in Jesus is our hope and salvation. Jesus is the Father’s only begotten Son, but he was his begotten Son for all eternity. They defined that Jesus and the Father are of the same substance or homoousian. (John 10:30, 14:9) Who God is in himself is expressly represented in Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:3) The fact that the Father would hold back nothing to save the Creation from its fallen state is expressed in Jesus. (John 3:16)

OK, love and Spirit, right? If God is love, then any response of his must be a response in love. This is exactly what Papa tells Mack on page 121. Mack assumes that God gets so angry with people that he kills them for his sin. Papa says to him, “Mackenzie, I am not who you think I am.” I think at this point it is important to bring in Hebrews 12. Here the writer reminds his audience that bad stuff happens to Christians. Some of it is used by God as a means to discipline us. But here again, does God discipline in anger or in love? Hebrews 12 answers that.

Jesus says that he was sent because of the Father’s love (John 3:16). Paul tells us in Ephesians that God’s plan has always to adopt us. He predestined us to adoption and how? “…in his love …” (Ephesians 1:4) Doesn’t sound much like the angry God who has separated us from him because he can’t stand being in our presence because of our sinfulness. Sounds more like Papa, Jesus and Sarayu in The Shack.

In my next post I will take a look at Mr. Driscoll’s second allegation: That The Shack teaches modalism. You may want to go look that up in a theological dictionary.