Remembering Soldiers as a Christian

Here in the United Stated we are in the midst of celebrating Memorial Day, where we remember those servicemen and women who gave their lives for their nation. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to bring up a topic that has been in the back of my mind for some time. You see, a while ago I read the blog post of an individual who had much to say in regards to remembering military servicemen and women. Namely, that he would never have respect for someone who joined the military. His reasoning was that Christ told us to love our enemies, not to kill, subjugate, or oppress them.

It is true that we are instructed to love our enemies, and that killing is spoken against throughout the Bible, but I fear that such Christian mentality falls into the problem of many left-wing modernists (especially those who thrived in the face of Vietnam and the recent Iraq War) who forgot that broad brushing a group based on rhetoric forsook the humanity of the individual. I'd like to first review the errors of the thinking we have been presented:

First, it suggests that all soldiers want war. This isn't true. There are some out there who have a "pray for war" mentality, but they are generally in the wrong thinking to begin with. Your average soldier doesn't want to be separated from family, home, and sent to a faraway country for extended periods of time to fight and possibly die. Yet they accept that possibility as duty.

Second, it suggests that all soldiers enjoy war and killing. This also isn't true. Even veterans who believed they did the right thing in serving during war have horror stories to share. Participation in war is not seen by a soldier as fun, but, again, as duty. It is never a constant mindset on anyone except the soldier on campaign, and only then it is because he is on a 24/7 job. For the soldier at home, they are as human as those out of uniform. I recall one time my father and I coming across a soldier heading into base, whose taxi had died on the side of the road. We picked him up and drove him to his destination, talking to him along the way. He was excited to begin training, and all that he was scheduled to do - none of it involved learning to kill, getting to kill, or going to war.

Third, it assumes a soldier's (let alone an army's) direct motive is to kill, subjugate, or oppress the opponent. This is not always true. There are plenty of stories where soldiers, facing a situation in which they had ever right to fire first, chose not to do so. I recall one story of a soldier in Bosnia who, having compassion for a drunken, old Serbian man who had shot at American troops, chose instead of killing him to talking him into giving up his weapon. Furthermore, soldiers are not always sent to fight, but to enforce: a soldier watching over Kosovar schoolchildren will only have to kill if anyone attempts to hurt them.

It might be noted here that those who hold standards to soldiers do not hold the same standards for the police. Police are armed men and women who - at some point in their life, if indeed that time comes - may be forced to kill a human being. Yet one does not see major portions of liberal Christianity denouncing Christian policemen, or saying that a Christian should not respect the position of a law enforcement agent. The only difference between a soldier and a policeman, however, is that a policeman is city-based whereas the soldier may be called by his country to fight on foreign soil. Both, however, are in a position of defense: the policeman defends his brother from the enemy of the law; the soldier defends his brother from the enemy of the state. 

Many have opined that when Christianity became accepted by the entire Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine, it complicated things because now any member of society could be a Christian, soldiers included. While it is certainly true that the Church had to deal with new problems, and often came up with humorous solutions (Basil the Great suggested that a soldier who kills in battle abstain from communion for three years), it also forgets that there existed Christian soldiers before Constantine's declaration. There exist many accounts of Christian soldiers (many of them martyrs) in the hagiography of ancient Christianity.

One forgotten Christian soldier is St. George. Although remembered as the dragon-slayer, this fictitious account does not hide the fact that George himself was a historical personality: a Christian soldier who was eventually martyred for his faith. In fact, his faith during martyrdom his faith was so strong and so clear that two people converted to Christ right then and there.

Another forgotten Christian soldier is St. Maurice, the patron saint of the American infantrymen and historical commander of the Theban Legion (all of whom were Christians). While on campaign, the legion was ordered to annihilate a town made up mostly of Christians. Maurice refused. The Roman command, seeking to turn his men against him, told the legion that if they followed with Maurice they would be decimated (every tenth man killed). The soldiers, identifying loyalty to their faithful commander equaling loyalty to their faithful God, refused to turn against him. As a result, the entire legion was martyred.

Yet another forgotten Christian soldier is St. Martin of Tours. Martin was a Roman officer on a winter campaign when his unit came across an old man begging for food and clothing. The other Roman officers, enraged at such "indignation," were about to kill him when Martin intervened. Then, taking his cloak, he divided it in two and gave half to the old man, using the sword, which so many condemn, for good rather than evil. Later that night Martin had a vision of Christ wearing the cloak, and afterward converted to Christianity. When he left military service he joined the church and later became a bishop.

There are many more I could mention, but I quote these few examples to give a taste of believing soldiers who have existed in the days preceding Constantine.

If the reader chooses to refuse any tale from the hagiography, I can certainly turn to modern times and ask: would these men be in the wrong? What of military chaplains who have given their life ministering to soldiers? Are they heretics? Is honoring them an affront to God? We must recognize, if we remember servicemen and women on days such as this, that we are remembering those spiritual leaders within the armed forces as well. Are these men traitors to their Lord?

What immediately comes to mind are the four chaplains who died on the USAT Dorchester in 1943. They were a mixed group for certain (one Catholic priest, one rabbi, and two Protestant ministers), yet they all were true to their faith. As life jackets became scarce, the chaplains gave up their own to soldiers. One chaplain, hearing a soldier say he had to go back to get his gloves, gave him his own so that the soldier's escape would not be delayed. All who survived said that the last thing they saw as the ship went down was the four chaplains huddled together in prayer. Are we to assume these men were wrong for saving the lives of soldiers, for caring for them as they would a civilian flock, and for giving their own lives for those we are to believe do nothing but kill? When Christ said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13; ESV), did He mean soldiers were to be left out?

What also of the Catholic chaplain Emil Kapaun, who was captured during the Korean War and spent his entire time ministering to soldiers - Catholic and Protestant - in the POW camp. Was he in error? Did these men simply deserve to die and go to hell? Or were they, in fact, worthy to hear the gospel, as any sinner is. The apostle James wrote, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (Jam 2:10; ESV). Why, then, should we cut off the compassion of God even if men were guilty of breaking the sixth commandment? Who are we to decide who does and does not receive the love of God?

I realize there are many who will never support war. That is not the issue here. However, to lose compassion and respect for soldiers is to grow heartless and legalistic. John Wesley, a great example of Christian compassion, went and visited murderers in prison and gave them the gospel message. If we are to believe soldiers are walking murderers in uniform, why should they not receive the same kind of human grace, which can only be sourced from a heart sincere in the love for God? "But you do not honor the murderer in prison," some might argue here. That is true. Then again, as I outlined in the beginning, the soldier does not have the same mindset of a murderer. To put them both into the same category, as those mentioned at the start of this post do, is erroneous. A killer has no rational mindset - a soldier does.

I realize there many who will not be moved by this, and I can only say that I did not write this for them. I will, however, end with this: there are many liberal Christians who, when the day of judgment comes, will be surprised how many people who wore the uniform will be with our Lord in paradise.

A Simple Review of "The Shack"

INTRODUCTION

I haven't encountered a religious-themed book with such mixed reviews as William P. Young's The Shack. Some family members told me it was worth a try. Women at a church I used to go to were reading it in their book club. A woman I knew at another church swore by it as a great novel (and, disturbingly enough, she quoted it more often than the Bible). At the same time, an old high school friend told me that she had tried to read it and lost interest, finding it to be like "a Disney version of C.S. Lewis." I heard over and over again from various circles (including the "Bible Answer Man," Hank Haanagraaf) that it was a heretical book, and heard little bits and snippets from the novel that supposedly proved why it was just so gosh darn heretical.

It was time I saw what it was like for myself...but here I have to be honest about something: I really tried to avoid this book. I kept telling myself I should buy it and dive in, but couldn't bear the thought of spending the money. My mother, at the recommendation of others, bought it for me as a birthday present. Even then, it simply rested on my bookshelf unread, nestled lovingly between John MacArthur's Charismatic Chaos and G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. I'd pass by and take notice of it, then look away and continue on. Something inside just kept me from reading it. Whenever I thought of reading it, it would get sidestepped by something like James White's The God Who Justifies or Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit (you can tell how eclectic my library is by now).

Finally, I said to myself, "Look, people are responding to this book, and it's making a mark on the Church. I should at least give it a try so I can have a valid opinion." If it was bad, it was bad, and I could at least explain my opinion to fans. If it was good, I'd be pleasantly surprised (and I have in the past), and I could try to defend it fairly against critics. So, after prolonged hesitation, I dove in.

The book itself isn't that long (at 248 pages), nor is it that hard to read, as I managed to get halfway through reading off and on throughout one day. The introduction has William Young claiming that the main character is in fact real, trying to give a kind of Dr. Watson-like feel to the story. Personally I don't know why he did this. Everyone will pretty much figure out this was a fictional story (something even more obvious as we go along). It also doesn't really add anything, given Young is neither an active character nor is he even present in the story. It's like those games you remember as a kid, where a friend would fake something that everyone knew was fake, then would conclude it with, "Ha! Just kidding," as if he had just confounded the world.

The plot involves the main character, Mackenzie Allen Philips (known simply as Mack) living in great depression after the disappearance and assumed murder of his young daughter at the hands of a serial child murderer known by the press as "the Little Ladykiller." Having worked in the news industry for four years and knowing what makes news managers shiver in their shoes, I personally think any news outlet that used this nickname would be considered tasteless and receive a lot of angry threats of lawsuits from the victims' family members.

One day Mack gets a strange note in the mail asking him to return to the shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was found. It is simply signed "Papa," the word Mack's wife used to refer to God. Curiosity overtakes Mack and he heads out to the shack. There he finds nothing and, in a fit of rage, destroys much of what is inside the shack. He heads out, only to find the snowy terrain turn into a beautiful landscape straight out of a Disney film. Mack realizes that God must be inside the shack. He enters and is greeted by...a large African American woman. Then appears a small Asian woman. Then out comes a Middle Eastern man. The large black woman calls herself Elousia. The Middle Eastern man, dressed as a carpenter, introduces himself as none other than Jesus (haw haw he's a carpenter haw haw). The Asian woman calls herself Sarayu. Then comes the climactic part of the chapter:

Thoughts tumbled over each other as Mack struggled to figure out what to do. Was one of these people God? What if they were hallucinations or angels, or God was coming later? That could be embarrassing. Since there were three of them, maybe this was a Trinity sort of thing. But two women and a man and none of them white? Then again, why had he naturally assumed that God would be white? He knew his mind was rambling so he focused on the one question he most wanted answered.

"Then," Mack struggled to ask, "which one of you is God?"

"I am," said all three in unison. Mack looked from one to the next, and even though he couldn't begin to grasp what he was seeing and hearing, he somehow believed them. [pg 87]

From here begins the famous portion of the book where Mack finds his spiritually awakening, interacting with each Trinitarian Person. Several topics are discussed in a kind of "talk it out" fashion, with someone asking questions or bringing up tough points to be answered by another, or someone teaching another certain beliefs or understandings through questions. One can see similar treatment in ancient texts such as Plato's Republic, or even in more recent works such as Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Some parts even come across like Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, with character changes and events in the past being resolved for moral conclusions.

INITIAL REACTIONS

We have here three people in a shack representing the Christian God. This reminded me of an old metaphor for the Trinity that compares it to three people inside a carriage. This metaphor is known as a bad one. Therefore, I couldn't help but feel I was about to embark on a book that was essentially a 248-paged bad metaphor. It could only have been worse if William Young had written a book about a man who goes to a shack and meets an old grandfather who then transforms into a middle-aged father and then a young son.

Before we even reached this point, I had a problem believing that Mack would have ventured forth to the shack to begin with. In most fiction writing classes (especially those regarding film or drama) they talk about something called "suspension of disbelief," which deals with a twist or turn in the narrative that starts the main story, and - regardless of circumstance - comes across as believable to the audience. For example, lightning striking a robot would not make it a conscious being in real life, however in the 1986 film Short Circuit was done in such a way that the audience could move forward without questioning. The Shack, I feel, does not meet this criteria with this plot element. Mack seems all too ready to head over to the shack where his daughter's bloodied dress was found, and seems to immediately assume it's God there waiting for him. Many of the most devout people I know would probably think the thing was a hoax, or completely unrelated to the event. I probably would have disregarded it entirely. There do exist scenes in the book where Mack discusses with a friend that it might be a hoax, but this is after he has decided to move forward with the trip. I probably would have had Mack continue rejecting the letter until maybe a year later a similar note appeared, prompting further curiosity to see who was sending it.

THE ROLE OF THE TRINITY

Now the immediate reaction by some may be to the transformation of the Trinity into a black woman, Jesus, and an Asian woman. Oh, but wait a moment - it doesn't stop there! In Chapter 11 Mack will be introduced to a Hispanic woman known as Sophia, the supposed embodiment of Wisdom. As I read, I couldn't help but think to myself, "Oh no...William Young turned God into the Burger King Kids Club!" I seriously expected a boy in a wheelchair to come out and introduce herself as the personification of God's grace (boy, imagine the theological implications of that!).

The transformation of God the Father into an old black woman named Papa would certainly be a shock to anyone, and Mack addresses this to Papa early on in their encounter.

She picked up a wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort of batter. "Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it's because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning."

She leaned forward as if to share a secret. "To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes." [pg. 93]

Papa will eventually transform into a man come Chapter 16, but the shock here doesn't necessarily come from the skin color or gender. If I were in Mack's situation, I would be immediately shocked that God the Father had revealed Himself at all. What was it that the beloved apostle John wrote at the very beginning of his gospel? "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known" (John 1:18; ESV). What was it that God did when He appeared to Moses? He covered him up because if Moses saw even a bit of God's face, he would have died. What did Christ Himself say to the failing disciples? That no one has seen the Father "except He who is from God; He has seen the Father" (John 6:46; NKJV). What did the apostle Paul write to the Colossians? That Christ (and no one else in the Trinity) is the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15; ESV). Mack is therefore very fortunate, because he's experiencing something that few prophets and no apostles ever witnessed. Some might emphasize that Young is responding to common stereotypes by not showing God the Father as an old bearded man...folks, both interpretations are wrong.

I can just hear some readers saying, "But what of Genesis 18!", referring to the chapter where the Lord appears to Abraham in the form of three men, believed by many to be an early revelation of the Trinitarian nature of God. The problem here is that the chapter states the Lord speaking in unison, and does not differentiate between any of the men in either way. It doesn't say, "So an Asian guy, African guy, and white guy appeared to Abraham..." You don't have an incident where Abraham asks, "Which one of you is God?" and all three answer comically in unison, "I am!"

What we're missing here is the real problem in the transformation of the Father and Holy Spirit into tangible personalities on par with Jesus. The problem therein deals not only with the role of the Incarnation, but the roles between the Persons of the Trinity. No where did it come out clearer than the section where Mack discovers something about Papa's body:

"How can you really know how I feel?" Mack asked, looking back into her eyes.

Papa didn't answer, only looked down at her hands. His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her wrists , like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes. Tears were slowly making their way down her face, little pathways through the flour that dusted her cheeks.

"Don't ever think what my son chose to do didn't cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark," she stated softly and gently. "We were there together." [pg. 95-96]

My immediate - and quite literal - reaction upon reading this was: WHAT?!

William Young completely confuses his readers in regards to the Trinitarian roles. The Father and Son were both on the cross? That almost comes across as modalism, except Young has established the Father and Son as two separate characters within the story. The Father has the scars of the crucifixion? In order for that to have happened, the Father would have had to have become incarnate. That was not what the Father did. Only the Son became incarnate. The wounds suffered by Christ were His because of an earthly body. The Father never had an earthly body, therefore the Father could never have had scars.

Furthermore, it confuses the relationship between the Incarnation's role and our sanctification through Christ. The Eternal Word, becoming incarnate in our sinful flesh, restored it through His resurrection in a spiritually glorified body. Upon ascending to paradise, Christ took the right hand of the Father - not a literal right hand like I would sit beside my Father, but uniting our corrupt flesh to the Divine Glory of the Father. Keep in mind I am not speaking the Christ deifies us into gods (as Mormons and Word of Faith leaders teach) but rather that, by partaking in the death and resurrection of Christ, we are sanctified and restored to the Father.

What about scripture? Paul wrote to the Colossians that "and you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death..." (Col. 1:21-22; ESV; emphasis mine). The "his" used for the section in bold is singular (it's also masculine) - the his clearly refers to Christ alone, for only the Son took a body of flesh and suffered death on the cross. Which, incidentally, is also referred to as his death - the death of the Son, not the Father.

More tellingly, what did Paul write to the Philippians?

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. [Philippians 2:5-11; ESV]

Who was it "born in the likeness of men," and who "made himself nothing," "being found in human form"? The text clearly states that it was Jesus Christ. Furthermore, it clearly states that it was the Son, not the Father, who was on the cross. The role of the Father was the exaltation and bestowing of power and authority upon the Son - not taking the form of men and dying on the cross. The blessed apostle Paul would be utterly dumbfounded by this passage from The Shack.

Some time ago, I listened to a lecture by William Young where he explained that his reason for doing this was to show that the Father had empathy towards the Son's suffering and therefore our suffering as a whole. That's a very nice and sweet sentiment, but the problem is you can portray the love of the Father towards the suffering without going to unbiblical and unorthodox literary portrayals. Church Fathers and Christian scholars and theologians have done it for over 2000 years while keeping in line with scripture - why can't William Young do it here?

This confusion between the distinction amongst the Persons of the Trinity continues at a scene where Mack sits down to have a meal with them. Mack asks the three characters which amongst them is in charge, to which Jesus begins an explanation.

"That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

Mack was surprised. "How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"

"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don't want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me."

"And that's how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I mean between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?"

"Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expression of your new nature within relationships." [pg 145-146]

I have a feeling that William Young has never studied the monarchial relationship within the Trinity, something that even early Church Fathers wrote on. Namely, the relationship between the Persons in the Trinity and the submission and adherence to the will of some Persons to others. This is not to say that the Persons bark orders to one another (that would be far more possibile in the scenario Young creates), but that there works within the Trinity an order. The Son submits to the will of the Father (Gal 1:4). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and can be worked through the Son (John 14:26). Furthermore, the very notion that God submits to mankind as the Persons in the Trinity submit to one another is simply blasphemous.

What we are witnessing here, I believe, is a transformation of the Trinitarian relationship among the Persons into a social gospel. The relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is supposed to a model for how we get along to one another. Therein lies a problem: mankind cannot possibly relate to the Persons in the Trinity as they relate to one another. The Persons of the Trinity at their core are coeternal, coexistent and united by Essence - no two people in history could ever make the same claims about themselves.

It is one thing to try to use the Trinity as a metaphor for people to get along. It's another to turn it upside down and declare that the Trinity DOES get along like three people should. That's also dangerous and invites a tritheistic understanding of the Trinitarian God.

THE JESUS OF "THE SHACK"

Once the plot proper takes off, Jesus has a major role in William Young's novel. One of the first things that struck me about this Jesus was his passive aggressiveness.

"Really?" said Mack, still shaking his head, and not sure if he really believed that. "So now what am I supposed to do?"

"You're not supposed to do anything. You're free to do whatever you like." Jesus paused and then continued, trying to help by giving Mack a few suggestions. "I am working on a wood project in the shed; Sarayu is in the garden; or you could go fishing, canoeing, or go in and talk to Papa."

"Well, I sort of feel obligated to go in and talk to him, uh, her."

"Oh," now Jesus was serious. "Don't go because you feel obligated. That won't get you any points around here. Go because it's what you want to do." [pg. 89]

Once again, my immediate and literal reaction to this was: WHAT?!

Are you serious? Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth just tell someone "Don't go to God unless it's what you want to do"? Is this the same Jesus whose first word in His earthly ministry was "repent"? (Matt 4:17) Incidentally, the original Greek word for "repent" in that passage is in the imperative - in other words, it's a command. It's not a, "Repent, if that's what you want to do," but a, "Repent, because that's what you need to do."

I could suddenly see why Reformed Christians in particular hated this book so much. Some might argue that William Young is simply emphasizing free will, but that's the problem - he's overemphasizing it. Even knowledgeable Arminians would recognize that. Could you imagine going to the doctor with a bad flu, the doctor handing you an antibiotic to heal you, and saying, "Here's the medicine, but take it because you want to take it." Probably not. Why then should we imagine God saying, "Come to me not because you should, but because you want to." This means every person in hell can look up to God and rightfully say, "Well, you gave me the choice, now there are consequences to one of them? Why didn't you tell me that before?!"

Even stranger is what happens only a few pages later, where Papa explains the miracles of Jesus.

"Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can't. Jesus is fully human. Although he is fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost - the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence."

"So, when he healed the blind?"

"He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone." [pg 99-100]

Yet again, my immediate and literal reaction: WHAT?!

It is true that, in many moments during His earthly ministry, Christ fulfilled His role as the perfect Man. He fulfilled the Law as prescribed by God, He lived a prayerful and sinless life, and He entrusted everything to God's will. However, He was at all times God, and that deity could not be separated from Him. The miracles He performed, in fact, were evidence of who He was.

Let us stop and think for a moment: if William Young is correct in his statement through the character of Papa, that the Eternal Word was during His earthly life simply a man who entrusted to God's power to take care of things, then Christ was a heretic and blasphemer. Why do I say this? I say this because of an exchange that occurred between the Pharisees and Christ:

And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"... [Mark 2:1-10; ESV]

"Who can forgive sins but God alone?" the Pharisees ask. Uh oh! Is Jesus in trouble? Not the Jesus of scripture, who responds that this is done so that "you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." This authority, to forgive sins and heal, is found within Jesus because it is Jesus who does them. No, the Incarnate Word was not someone who simply gave up the power of His deities and left the Father to do all the work (which is dangerously close to Oneness Pentecostal theology). He did such work because He was God. Only God had the authority to forgive sins, therefore Christ was either God or blasphemer. We know He was not the latter. Indeed, it was He who created the world, therefore it was only He who could heal the world. Again I say: the miracles confirmed who He was.

Perhaps the biggest shocker is the section where William Young's Jesus teaches something dangerously close to universalism.

"Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda."

"Is that what it means to be a Christian?" It sounded kind of stupid as Mack said it, but it was how he was trying to sum everything up in his mind.

"Who said anything about being a Christian? I'm not a Christian."

The idea struck Mack as odd and unexpected and he couldn't keep himself from grinning. "No, I suppose you aren't."

They arrived at the door of the workshop. Again Jesus stopped. "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."

"Does that mean," asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"

"Not at all," smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." [pg 181-182]

Aside from the silly statement "I'm not a Christian," as if the person who calls himself a Christian is living in error (of course Jesus wasn't Christian - He was God!), the teaching presented is simply heretical. He states, "Those who love me come from every system that exists," and then goes on to mention Buddhists, Mormons, and Muslims, putting them on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

Is this a proper assessment of various beliefs? Not at all. Democrats and Republicans are members of a political party which function within a government - not a religious system. Could some of those religious sects that William Young's Jesus mentions truly love him? No. Buddhists are inherently an atheistic faith which would deny the necessity of God in their lives, whereas Mormons believe in a warped view of Christ taught by a heretic and Muslims don't even believe in the deity of Christ, let alone the Trinity (in fact, they call both damnable heresy). Therefore, including political parties among religious faiths and condemning them all as "systems" is presenting a warped view of the various divisions facing the world.

Stating that religious groups which deny elements of Christ's person or His very deity "love him" presents a universalist - and therefore heretical - view of salvation. There had been a moment earlier in the book that universalism had been hinted at, in a dialogue between Mack and his daughter Missy.

Mack waited while his girls processed their thoughts. Missy was next to ask. "Is the Great Spirit another name for God - you know, Jesus' papa?"

Mack smiled in the dark. Obviously, Nan's nightly prayers were having an effect. "I would suppose so. It's a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great." [pg 31]

I did not want to jump to conclusions because I wanted to get into the book and understand William Young's point of view. Unfortunately, my gut reaction had proved correct.

We are told by William Young's Jesus that "I will travel any road to find you" after mentioning many such roads. Is this what Christ taught? Let me quote the Jesus of scripture.

"But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." [Matthew 10:33]

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." [John 6:44]

This is a very different picture than what William Young presents. Again, free will is being overemphasized so that accountability and orthodoxy are being forsaken.

THE REOCCURING PROBLEMS

The greatest problem with the theology of The Shack is that it presents two conundrums: on the one hand, it presents ideas and interpretations that are deeply unbiblical; on the other hand, it is so vague in its interpretation that sometimes it can hardly be considered doctrinal. It reminds me a lot of many Emergent teachers who give such wording in their theology that you can't help but feel like there's something under the surface, and it isn't until you search deeper that you realize something is really afoot. It's much like a crocodile who rests partially under the water, still and lifeless and seemingly harmless until it finally snaps at its pray.

The greatest example of this is the statement by William Young's Jesus, done in response to the question if all roads lead to heaven: "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." It doesn't really respond to the question, and given what we've supplied before it can only lead to a kind of universalism. Again, too vague to be doctrinal (let alone edifying), and too poorly worded to be orthodox.

The continuing theme throughout the book is that God is love. God is love. God is love. Always love. God is love. That is true, God is love, but with such love comes not only a love for creation but a love for righteousness and truth. Lightness and darkness cannot coexist. What, then, becomes of such darkness? The book seems to avoid any serious response to judgment and punishment, particularly in scripture. Mack confronts Papa about punishment and judgment, saying: "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?" (pg 119), which Papa eventually shrugs off with: "You raise some important questions and we'll get around to them, I promise." (pg 120)

What does this promised resolution to judgment questions amount to? Sophia showing Mack his deceased daughter living happily in the afterlife, followed by the statement, "Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right" (pg. 169)

And once again, my immediate reaction: WHAT?!

Later on, in Chapter 15, Mack will meet his abusive father in a vague idea of the afterlife, where both father and son embrace and apparently resolve past differences. This leads one to wonder if William Young is putting forward the idea of a restorative hell, something which has been condemned by most orthodox Christians since the early days of the Church (the belief, known as apocatastasis, originated largely from Origin, and was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD). In any case, one imagines if this was what the afterlife was like, the rich man would have gone over to Lazarus and embraced him, asked for forgiveness, and then have been welcomed into the bosom of Abraham.

The default is always to fall back on the belief that God is love. It is true that God is love, but it is a divine love that cannot coexist with hate. Christians who thrive on the "God is love" mantra and don't look deeper into what such love entails become easy pray for atheists, who are not easily swayed by William Young's "let's talk about it later" argument and can readily cite passages from the Old Testament to try to prove their point. Indeed, the concept of "love" found in The Shack belongs more in the 1960's more than in scripture.

CONCLUSION

As I finished the last page and closed the book shut, I couldn't help but ponder on what I had just read. This was the novel that thousands of people had drooled over? This was the book that some quoted more than the Bible? Aside from the fact that I didn't find William Young's writing style anything near C.S. Lewis, and found the character interactions to sometimes be dull and inconsistent (Papa talks like Florida from Good Times one minute, then like Condoleezza Rice the next), it had to probably have been one of the most theologically unsound works of fiction I had ever come across. It also had some of the silliest metaphors I had ever read ("If a rainbow makes a sound, or a flower as it grows, that was the sound of her laughter"; pg 154).

J.R.R. Tolkien's subtle metaphors in his Lord of the Rings series were far more Christian than William Young's more blatant depictions. Tolkien, who often criticized fellow Christian writer C.S. Lewis for being obvious in his literary metaphors, would probably have much to say about the symbolism of Young's novel. On that note, I might say that I think Eugene Peterson, who is quoted on the front cover saying that this book does "for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his," owes John Bunyan an apology. No, I do not hold every Christian author up to the standard of Bunyan or Tolkien, but I cite them here simply as examples of what could have been reached for but wasn't.

The little author bio on the back of the book mentions that William Young "suffered great loss" in his life. No doubt this book, given its wording and focus, is meant for those who suffer great pain in their life. I've noticed that many who fell in love with this book may have done so because of such pain. Life pain is difficult, and sometimes we need to better our understanding of God to get through it. However, we cannot fictionalize our theology to create a God who pleases us. We have to keep our focus on the God of scripture, and the God who has revealed Himself throughout the ages first through the prophets and then His Son, Jesus Christ. Yes, He is a God of love, but we must not attempt to recreate or redefine that love. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I have no doubt William Young had good intentions writing this book - the problem is he wrote a 248-paged cobblestone for the road to hell.

The author's acknowledgments at the end of the book states: "I pray that you find the same grace there that I did, and that the abiding presence of Papa, Jesus and Sarayu will fill up your inside emptiness with joy unspeakable and full of glory." No thank you! I will entrust the real and true Father, Son and Holy Spirit to do that for me. Amen.

Justin Peters reviews The Message

Some may remember my post regarding strange Bible translations, and how I poked fun at The Message's odd wording of Revelation 1:8. Well, it seems that pastor Justin Peters, over at his ministry's web page, has a short review of The Message's translation of the Bible. He takes a few key verses from the New Testament and places translations from The Message alongside the NIV, NASB, and KJV. Needless to say, there are some shocking and inexplicable changes. I think he does a good job getting to the point of the errors and not going the extreme route that we find so many of the KJV-Onlyists doing.

"A more glorious work of power..."

The following is from the Jonathan Edwards sermon God Glorified in Man's Dependence.

We receive all from the power of God. Man's redemption is often spoken of as a work of wonderful power as well as grace. The great power of God appears in bringing a sinner from his low state, and from the depths of sin and misery, to such an exalted state of holiness and happiness. Eph. i. 19. "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power."

We are dependent on God's power through every step of our redemption. We are dependent on the power of God to convert us, and give faith in Jesus Christ, and the new nature. It is a work of creation: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 17. "We are created in Christ Jesus," Eph. ii. 10. The fallen creature cannot attain to true holiness, but by being created again. Eph. v. 24, "And that yet put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." It is a raising from the dead. Colos. ii. 12, 13. "Wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Yea, it is a more glorious work of power than mere creation, or raising a dead body to life, in that the effect attained is greater and more excellent. That holy and happy being, and spiritual life, which is produced in the work of conversion, is a far greater and more glorious effect, than mere being and life. And the state from whence the change is made - a death in sin, a total corruption of nature, and depth of misery - is far more remote from the state attained than mere death or non-entity.

It is by God's power also that we are preserved in a state of grace. 1 Pet. i. 5. "Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." As grace is at first from God, so it is continually from him, and is maintained by him, as much as light in the atmosphere is all day long from the sun, as well as at first dawning, or sun-rising. Men are dependent on the power of God for every exercise of grace, and for carrying on that work in the heart, for subduing sin and corruption, increasing holy principles, and enabling to bring forth fruit in good works. Man is dependent on divine power in bringing grace to its perfection, in making the soul completely amiable in Christ's glorious likeness, and filling of it with a satisfying joy and blessedness; and for the raising of the body to life, and to such a perfect state, that it shall be suitable for a habitation and organ for a soul so perfected and blessed. These are the most glorious effects of the power of God, that are seen in the series of God's acts with respect to the creatures.

Man was dependent on the power of God in his first estate, but he is more dependent on his power now; he needs God's power to do more things for him, and depends on a more wonderful exercise of his power. It was an effect of the power of God to make man holy at the first: but more remarkably so now, because there is a great deal of opposition and difficulty in the way. It is a more glorious effect of power to make that holy that was so depraved, and under the dominion of sin, than to confer holiness on that which before had nothing of the contrary. It is a more glorious work of power to rescue a soul out of the hands of the devil, and from the powers of darkness, and to bring it unto a state of salvation, than to confer holiness where there was no prepossession or opposition. Luke xi. 21-22. "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor, wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils." So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept man from falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man. Thus we have shown how the redeemed are dependent on God for all their good, as they have all of him.

Finding God in Our Humility

The following is from Matthew Henry's commentary on the Bible, and is from the section dealing with Exodus 3:1-6.

He was keeping the flock (tending sheep) near mount Horeb. This was a poor employment for a man of his parts and education, yet he rests satisfied with it, and thus learns meekness and contentment to a high degree, for which he is more celebrated in sacred writ than for all his other learning. Note, in the calling to which we are called we should abide, and not be given to change. Even hose that are qualified for great employments and services must not think it strange if they be confined to obscurity; it was the lot of Moses before them, who foresaw nothing to the contrary but that he should die, as he had lived a great while, a poor despicable shepherd. Let those that think themselves buried alive be content to shine like lamps in their sepulchers, and wait till God's time come for setting them on a candlestick. Thus employed Moses was, when he was honoured with this vision. Note, God will encourage industry. The shepherds were keeping their flocks when they received the tidings of our Savior's birth, Lu. 2:8. Satan loves to find us idle; God is well pleased when he find us employed. Retirement is a good friend to our communion with God. When we are alone, the Father is with us. Moses saw more of God in a desert than ever he had seen in Pharaoh's court.

Rants on Translations

I thought for good humor we'd look at a few random translations, focusing on various passages. Keep in mind I'm not necessarily condemning these specific translations (well, maybe a few of them, and I think it would be obvious which ones I would) only poking fun at some entertaining mistakes made therein.

First, let's look at a passage from Paul's conversion, as found in the New International Version:

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying..." [Acts 9:11]

Ugh..."Straight Street"? Most translations say, "a street called Straight," and indeed that's what the original Greek says. In fact, that's what the original street is called! It literally is a street simply called "Straight" (which was apparently pretty common back then). A priest I used to know actually went and visited Damascus, and the street where Paul stayed at is still there and is still simply called "Straight."

Now let's look at something from The Message.

The Master declares, "I'm A to Z. I'm The God Who Is, The God Who Was, and The God About to Arrive. I'm the Sovereign-Strong." [Revelation 1:8]

Christ is "A to Z"? Wha? Actually, this is a reworking of the original line, which is "I am the Alpha and Omega." The Greek letters Alpha and Omega were the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, hence the following statement, "the beginning and the end." This is not in this translation, and the change from Alpha and Omega to A and Z is just confusing. Unless a Christian has no knowledge of any other translation, they will read this passage as, "I am Alpha and Zeta" - Zeta, incidentally, is NOT the last letter in the Greek alphabet. In any case, "I'm A to Z" makes it sound as if God is a kid's pop-up book, not an eternal Being.

Now let's look at something from the Bible in Basic English. Know the shortest line in the Bible? Let's see how they translate it:

And Jesus himself was weeping [John 11:35]

Are you kidding me? They took the shortest line in the Bible and made it somehow longer? What does it say when the film Hellraiser treats a verse from scripture better than an actual biblical translation?

Now for fun let's look at the Jehovah's Witness Bible - actually, I could create a whole blog post about it, but let's see how the New World Translation handles one of my favorite passages of scripture:

And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." [Luke 23:43]

Oh...I see what you did there...thought you were sly, eh? Moving the comma, all subtle-like...

So why is Jesus telling the wise thief, "Truly I tell you today"? What, is He going to say tomorrow: "Sorry man, I just meant for that day. Now I'm saying there ain't no paradise for you." Plus, what other day would Jesus say this? Even logically, this translation doesn't make sense. "Truly I tell you tomorrow, you will be with Me in Paradise. Oops! I just told you."

Finally, let's look at the Joseph Smith "translation," which was really Joseph Smith simply taking the Bible and adding bits to fit with his theology.

But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [Romans 4:5]

Wait, what?! "Justifieth not the ungodly?" Apparently, Joseph Smith didn't like the idea that God would justify the ungodly (as if there exists someone who is "godly"). Indeed, if one reviews Smith's "translation" of Romans 4, a very work-centered gospel is preached as opposed to a gospel where one is justified by faith. This contradicts the entire point presented by Paul in Romans. Apparently even the original apostles were prone to theological error - did the "Great Apostasy" happen sooner than the Mormon church would have us believe?

Martin Luther on Baptism

The following is taken from Martin Luther's The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. It is in part a response to a statement by Jerome, the Latin Father, that "penitence" is "the second plank after shipwreck."

When the children of Israel turned to penitence, they remembered, first of all, their exodus from Egypt; and in remembering this they returned to the God who had led them out. Moses constantly impressed this memory and this leadership on them, as David did the same. But how much more ought we to be mindful of our exodus from our Egypt, and, with that in mind, to return to Him who led us out through the baptism of rebirth which we are commanded to remember for this very purpose! This can be done most appropriately in the sacrament of bread and wine. Formerly the three sacraments of penitence, baptism and the Lord's Supper, were celebrated with the same end; and they supplemented one another. Thus we read of a holy virgin, who, as often as she suffered temptation, made her baptism her sole defense; she said briefly, "I am a Christian." The enemy immediately perceived the power of baptism and of a faith which clings to the truth of a promise-keeping God, and fled from her.

In this way, you will see how rich a Christian is, i.e., one who has been baptized. Even if he wished, he could not lose his salvation however often he sinned, save only if he refused to believe. No sins have it in their power to damn him, but only unbelief. If his faith relies on the divine promise made at baptism, all things else are embraced by that same faith, nay by the truth of God; because He cannot deny Himself, if you confess Him and continue to cling to His promise. But "contrition" and "confession of sin" followed by "satisfaction," and all the other devices thought out by men, will desert you suddenly and leave you in distress, if you forget this divine truth and batten upon those things. Whatever is done apart from faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.

Similarly, you will see how dangerous, indeed false, it is to imagine that penitence is a plank to which you can cling after shipwreck; and how pernicious is the error of supposing that the power of baptism is annulled by sin, and that even this ship is dashed in pieces. Nay, that one ship remains, solid and indestructible, and its timbers will never be broken to pieces. All who voyage in it are traveling to the haven of salvation, namely, the divine truth promised in the sacraments. True, it often happens that many people foolishly leap out of the ship into the sea, and perish. These are they who abandon faith in the promise and plunge themselves in sin. But the ship itself survives and, being seaworthy, continues on its course. If any one, by some gracious gift, is able to return to the ship, he is carried into life not by some plank, but by the well-found ship itself. One who returns to the abiding and enduring promise of God through faith is such a man. On this account, Peter, in II Peter 1, rebukes those who sin, because they are forgetful of the time when they were cleansed from their former sins; doubtless reproving them for their ingratitude after accepting baptism, and for their disloyal impiety.

Inspiration and Inerrancy

The White Horse Inn broadcast has a good two-part broadcast regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. They're about thirty minutes each, and features Dr. Michael Horton with a few other guests.

Here is the broadcast on inspiration.

Here is the broadcast on inerrancy.

Not Religion, but Christ

When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsarist government in Russia, one of their first actions was to attack the Russian Orthodox Church, and religion in general. One of the ways they went about this was to cease the education of "Church Slavonic," the liturgical language of Russian Orthodoxy. Their goal was to essentially dumb down the faith to rob the Russians of some religious heritage. Their goal was to eliminate God by making His followers carry an uneducated opinion of who He is.

We are guilty of similar attempts today.

One of the ways we did this was to change our understanding of Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Gospel was simplified to one of simple love, and Jesus was nothing more than a nice man who taught nice things. This saw the reemergence of Pelagianism, in which Jesus is seen, even by many Christians, as simply a good example to follow. This also led to an oversimplifying of the Gospel into nothing but Love without any Law, judgment or consequences. Do not misunderstand me - I am not promoting a Pharisaical mode of leadership. Rather, I am pointing out that, in taking away God's commands and justice, we have removed our obligation to follow the laws. We have set up basic laws but removed the policeman to enforce them, because we found his presence to be too offensive.

This has led to serious problems within the church. We have, first and foremost, demoted, within our own minds, the role our Lord plays in our lives. If we give to Christ the same persona we give to Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or any other "role model," then we place in Him fallibility, mortality, and make Him our peer. We have also, by simplifying the message of God into empty love, created a self-contradictory theology that conflicts with the rest of the history of God's people. This is why it is often so easy for atheists to jump to the Old Testament, point to moments of God's judgment, and ask, "Aha! See? Where is this loving savior here? Is this the same Jesus that you says love me?" As a result of this, many false churches (in particular among the Emergent and Emerging crowd) have had to attack the authenticity of scripture. Post-modern mindsets have assured us that those "embarrassing" passages from the Old Testament (and perhaps even some from the New) are no longer binding, and merely reflect a different "understanding" of God. Thus in trying to strengthen scripture they only weaken it.

Furthermore, we have demoted our Lord with a simple word: religion. This all encompassing word, at the very core of its definition, simply means "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" (source).The word itself did not come about until the 12th century or so, yet it has been so abused and mishandled that its history and original definition no longer carries any meaning.

How many times have I heard people respond to Christian doctrine with, "Why do people let their influences come by religion?", or "People are saying this just because of religion!" Even worse, people will shrug off all religions with, "People have killed in the name of religion," or "Organized religion has made people do stupid things." There is no denial that there those who commit evil deeds in the name of theological beliefs or what they perceive to be commands from their holy scriptures, however to broad brush an entire range of theologies and beliefs with infantile statements is simplistic at best.

It is also incredibly unfair. I have heard people respond to Middle Eastern honor killings with, "This is why I don't like organized religion." In one fell swoop, they have combined an isolated cultural phenomenon with Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and dozens of other beliefs, many of which can't possibly believe anything similar. Many of these people, I might add, are political ideologues in one way or another, yet we would never hear them say, "I don't believe in politics because of the Nazis," or "I don't believe in any form of government because of what Stalin did." Why is this? Why do they broad brush "religion," or disregard any theological understanding as merely religion? With the question of Christianity, the answer is very simple: because it is easier to hate an idea than a face.

One would never hear a person denouncing religion on the news with, "I denounce Jesus Christ." One would never hear them say, "These people are doing this because of what Jesus said." They might, but in a roundabout way, such as denying that Jesus existed or that the Resurrection happened. No, it's much, much easier to say, "These people are doing this because of religion," and in the end they present to society a strawman known as "religion" that is looked down upon as dead and cold, and must be avoided at all costs. How familiar this line of thinking is. Was this not one of the first temptations of man? That God was to be ignored, and that His commands were not as important as we thought they were, and we are free to ignore them? That our ignorance of Him would only lead to our greater glory? (Gen 3:4-5)

Bishop Fulton Sheen once touched on this subject, when he compared Christianity to Communism, a very real evil in his day. He said that the difference between the two was, while the basis of Communism was fear and dogma, the basis of Christianity was love and a Man. That Man is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the embodiment of every being of Christianity. He is our faith, He is our way of life, He is our salvation. Even if every Bible in the world were to suddenly perish, we would still have the Incarnate and Ascended Word to guide His Church. Ignatius, an early Church Father, wrote to the Philadelphians: "For me, Jesus Christ is the written word; His cross and death and resurrection and faith through Him make up untampered documents."

Christ claimed much more than most other founders of "religion." He didn't claim to be a prophet like Mohammad, nor did He claim to find a better way of life like Buddha or Confucius. Instead, He claimed to be God, higher than a prophet and the embodiment of life. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," He told the blessed apostle Thomas (John 14:6), and to the Jews who contested His statement that Abraham looked forward to His day, Christ replied, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). Most of all, He not only told His followers to expect suffering...but He was the first to allow Himself to suffer, giving Himself on the cross. We have, in belief in Him, everlasting life, and through Him we have peace in the Father. It is not an empty belief, but a living belief in which we allow God to transform our lives for the better, so that once the storm of our heart is calmed the captain of the ship is our Lord and Savior, sailing onward with us towards Paradise.

In man's arrogance and pride, we desire to forget this. We do not want this. Take away this accountability. Take away these declarations of divinity. Take away these acts of love and sacrifice, and the calls for repentance in the face of coming judgment. Forget it all. Let us give it the name "religion" and toss it into the gutter. It will just go away. We have justified ourselves by turning it into a straw man within our own mind, something useless and unable to cause harm. It has no power over us...and we suppress any desire for it to have power over us. If we are spiritually dead, then let us embrace our festering. This "religion" is like all the others that we have rejected. We will treat it just as we treated those other unwanted children. Whatever merit it may have or mettle if may be made of we care not - we only wish to see it destroyed. Then we will, if for a little while, have our personal freedom.

How gleefully ignorant the world is today. We seek to justify ourselves and forget He who alone can justify the ungodly. We seek to glorify creation while ignoring our Creator. We seek to put in place laws but forget He who made all things as they are. We believe that we alone are capable of knowing "good and evil," and do not turn to He who is nothing but good. We have a heavy accountability on our shoulders, but we readily disregard it because it is seen as simply dogmatic "religion."

"For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man," said our Lord, "for as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt 24:37-39). We are witnessing this in our own times, and from this open display of willful ignorance comes a real truth: the greatest pain felt by the damned in Hell will not be the lake of fire, nor the pains caused by demons, or any other tangible pain...no, the greatest pain will be the knowledge that Christ is God.

The Great Captain of Your Salvation

The following is from a sermon by John Wesley.

And where no creature is, still God is there. The presence or absence of any or all creatures makes no difference with regard to him. He is equally in all, or without all. Many have been the disputes among philosophers whether there be any such thing as empty space in the universe; and it is now generally supposed that all space is full. Perhaps it cannot be proved that all space is filled with matter. But the Heathen himself will bear us witness, Jovis omnia plena: "All things are full of God." Yea, and space exists beyond the bounds of creation (for creation must have bounds, seeing nothing is boundless, nothing can be, but the great Creator), even that space cannot exclude Him who fills the heaven and the earth...

Indeed this very expression, "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" (the question being equal to the strongest affirmation), implies the clearest assertion of God's being present everywhere and filling all space; for it is well known, the Hebrew phrase "heaven and earth," includes the whole universe; the whole extent of space, created or uncreated, and all that is therein.

Nay, and we cannot believe the omnipotence of God, unless we believe his omnipresence; for, seeing, as was observed before, nothing can act where it is not, -- if there were any space where God was not present, he would not be able to do anything there. Therefore, to deny the omnipresence of God implies, likewise, the denial of his omnipotence. To set bounds to the one is undoubtedly to set bounds to the other also.

Indeed, wherever we suppose him not to be, there we suppose all his attributes to be in vain. He cannot exercise there either his justice or mercy, either his power or wisdom. In extra-mundane space, (so to speak) where we suppose God not to be present, we must, of course, suppose him to have no duration; but as it is supposed to be beyond the bounds of the creation, so it is beyond the bounds of the Creator's power. Such is the blasphemous absurdity which is implied in this supposition...

In particular: If there is not a word in your tongue, not a syllable you speak, but he "knoweth it altogether;" how exact should you be in "setting a watch before your mouth, and in keeping the door of your lips!" How wary does it behove you to be in all your conversation; being forewarned by your Judge, that "by your words you shall be justified, or by your words you shall be condemned!" How cautious, lest "any corrupt communication," any uncharitable, yea, or unprofitable discourse, should "proceed out of your mouth;" instead of "that which is good to the use of edifying, and meet to minister grace to the hearers!"

Yea, if God sees our hearts as well as our hands, and in all places; if he understandeth our thoughts long before they are clothed with words, how earnestly should we urge that petition, "Search me, O Lord, and prove me; try out my reins and my heart; look well if there be any way of wickedness in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!" Yea, how needful is it to work together with him, in "keeping our hearts with all diligence," till he hath "cast down imaginations," evil reasonings, "and everything that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and brought into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ!"

On the other hand, if you are already listed under the great Captain of your salvation, seeing you are continually under the eye of your Captain, how zealous and active should you be to "fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life;" "to endure hardship, as good soldiers of Jesus Christ;" to use all diligence, to "war a good warfare," and to do whatever is acceptable in his sight! How studious should you be to approve all your ways to his all-seeing eyes; that he may say to your hearts, what he will proclaim aloud in the great assembly of men and angels, "Well done, good and faithful servants!"

In order to attain these glorious ends, spare no pains to preserve always a deep, a continual, a lively, and a joyful sense of his gracious presence. Never forget his comprehensive word to the great father of the faithful: "I am the Almighty" (rather, the All-sufficient) "God; walk before me, and be thou perfect!" Cheerfully expect that He, before whom you stand, will ever guide you with his eye, will support you by his guardian hand, will keep you from all evil, and "when you have suffered a while, [he] will make you perfect, will stablish, strengthen, and settle you;" and then "preserve you unblameable, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!" [from Sermon 111, "On the Omnipresence of God"; source]