Tuesday, August 31, 2010

A Simple Review of "A Christianity Worth Believing"

I first came across Doug Pagitt some years ago when I heard his interview on Todd Friel's Way of the Master radio show (Parts 1 and 2). I was flabbergasted by the near complete inability of Doug Pagitt to answer even the most basic question in a straightforward manner (most humorous is at the beginning when Pagitt is asked where a good Buddhist goes after death and replies, "He probably goes to the funeral home"). So when I came across his 2008 book A Christianity Worth Believing, I decided to sit down and see what it really was that worked in his personal theology. What I read made me understand his position on the radio interview on WOTM radio a little bit more...but nonetheless it was just as unbiblical and unorthodox as the radio interview had portrayed his theology to be. While I wasn't screaming out loud "WHAT?!" like I did reading The Shack, I was nonetheless just as flabbergasted, if not more, than when I heard Pagitt respond to Todd Friel's questions.

The book is written like many others coming from the Emergent Church movement: it's part memoir, part theological study, as Pagitt himself admits in the preface. Every chapter opens up with a person story from Pagitt, followed by a theological lesson stemming from said story. The topics vary, but for the most part consist of God's role in a person's life and sin. In the end, does Pagitt present to us a Christianity worth believing? Sadly, not at all. Let's review some key topics and issues stemming from the book.

The Authority of Scripture

Let's first examine by Doug Pagitt's opinion of scripture, for surely if we are expected to believe in a "Christianity worth believing," it must come from Christian scripture, correct? Then by what authority does Doug Pagitt give scripture? Actually, very little, despite his assertion that he's teaching otherwise.
I just don’t think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith. Abraham didn’t believe the Bible when God claimed him to be a righteous man because it hadn’t been written yet. Moses didn’t read the lived history of his people as devotional material. David didn’t meditate on the words of Isaiah. The disciples didn’t read the letters of Paul in between conversations with Jesus. The Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, came along in the midst of the story. It is the result of the story of faith, not the cause.

This is usually the point in a conversation where someone starts accusing me of a low view of the Bible, of stripping it of its authority. But I believe this understanding of the Bible restores its authority by allowing it to be alive and free of the constraints we throw on it. [pg. 64-65]
On a surface level, of course, these arguments are simply silly. No, Abraham didn't have scripture, but he also spoke directly to God, and therefore didn't need any. Moses may have not had written scripture at the time, although he did give the Jews the Torah and Law by which they were to abide. David didn't meditate on the words of Isaiah, but he did have the Torah, the Law, possibly Judges, and likewise prophets who spoke directly to God and for God - David also wrote much of what we know today as the Psalms, which were sung and read by people of his day. The disciples may have not had a complete New Testament as they traversed Asia Minor, but they were heavily versed in the Old Testament and quoted it extensively. Pagitt's argument therefore does not hold as much water as he'd like - the Biblical characters he's cited either had good reason not to use scripture or did use scripture in one form or another.

This, however, is veering off the subject he is discussing. When we speak about what "constraints" are thrown upon scripture, what are we ultimately talking about? The supreme authority of the scriptures. The ability to prove something wrong with a man's theology and demonstrate it with scripture. The necessity to exegete and expound upon passages of scripture to form our doctrine. Whenever a teacher or group attacks the necessity to do this, they are usually preparing to insert their own authority in the void.

This is added onto in Pagitt's response to the argument that scripture is "God-breathed."
The inerrancy debate is based on the belief that the Bible is the word of God, that the Bible is true because God made it and gave it to us as a guide to truth. But that’s not what the Bible says. In a letter to the apostle Paul to a young ministry worker named Timothy, Paul wrote, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Many Christians have taken this phrase to mean that the Bible is made up of God’s words. That’s not how Paul or Timothy would have understood it. The word breath would have brought to mind God as creator and life-giver. In that word they would have heard hints of God speaking, breathing the world into existence in the Genesis story. They would imagine God breathing life into Adam. They would picture Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on the disciples. For them the image of God’s breath symbolized a living and activating force. [pg. 65]
I almost want to laugh that Pagitt would quote a verse of scripture and then teach a contradiction when people can refer back a sentence or two to the verse he's talking about, but I can't laugh because people out there do fall for this. Paul most likely wasn't conjuring up images of creation for obvious contextual reasons: the direct object of what is "God-breathed" is scripture, and from this status of being "God-breathed" it is said that scripture is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." That's most likely what Timothy thought as he read Paul's letter, not the story of Adam and Eve.

Pagitt explains his concept of scripture further with:
Paul explains that the Bible, the God-breathed Scriptures, are meant to be lived. The Bible is a functional book that equips people to join with God in God’s work so they can act righteously. For Paul, the Holy Scriptures were alive; God was creating and re-creating through them. The Bible wasn’t a removed “truth text.” It was a fully integrated piece of the Christian life, one that held authority because it was a living, breathing symbol of God’s continual activity. [pg 66-67]
Some Christians reading this might be confused, as this sounds true. The scriptures "are meant to be lived"? That sounds like what Christians are supposed to believe - we're supposed to be a living faith reflecting the commands of scripture. This, however, is not what Pagitt is teaching us to do. As we move along in the review, we will see exactly what he means by the statement that scriptures "are meant to be lived."

Plato, the Greek Bogeyman

Early on in the book, when we finally get around to some discussion on history and scripture, Doug Pagitt presents a very wild (and sadly unoriginal) view of early church history. Stop me if you've heard this one: everything was fine and dandy until Emperor Constantine came along and ruined everything. Constantine was not a perfect man, but the way men like Dan Brown, Jack Chick and Doug Pagitt treat him, you would think he was Satan incarnate. If he were alive today he could be quite wealthy from libel lawsuits.

Pagitt's attack against Constantine amounts to this: when Christianity was made a legal and then official religion of the empire, it was then mixed with Greek and pagan philosophical thought to make it more appealing to the Gentile members of the empire at the time. Pagitt doesn't bother to explain why this would be necessary, given that most Christians at that time were already Gentiles...but I don't believe he expects us to ask any questions either.

This new theology mixture has many names that Pagitt applies throughout the book: "separatist dualism" (pg. 87); "the Greek version of God" (pg. 113); "a clear Greek-Christian hybrid" (pg. 125); "the Greek gospel" (pg. 186); and even in one instance "out of date theology" (pg. 136). He compares it at times to the dualism of the Gnostics, and at other times refers it to Platonic dualism. In the end all the names and phrases have the same meaning: the Christianity we know today and in most churches worldwide is a mix of pagan philosophical thought that has nothing to do with how early Christian believes. In other words, the vast majority of churches - if not all - are following a heresy.

I should note here that Pagitt doesn't directly claim he has the secret to real Christianity, nor does he claim to be the prophet nor the son of a prophet. Nevertheless, when you plant the seed into your reader's mind that Christianity has for 1700 years been teaching the wrong thing, and now you are presenting the "better" way of seeing the gospel, the reader can only conclude that you are, in essence, attempting to save the faith with your theology. It is like telling someone dying of cancer, "I'm not saying this treatment will save your life, but every other treatment in the world except this one won't work."
I'm used to reading these kinds of historically inaccurate views of the early church before, but perhaps what aggravated me the most by Pagitt's use of it was that he never once justifies his position. He simply introduces early on the concept of, "Yup, the early church was tarnished by Platonic dualism," and then repeats that over and over again throughout the book. He doesn't give any evidence from historical sources nor doe he quote any Church Fathers - he simply creates this imaginary bogeyman for the reader to be afraid of. Any time he talks about historic Christian doctrine he immediately writes something to the effect of: "Look out! That's the evil Platonic dualism talking!" This is followed by his own theology of what he thinks Christianity should be instead. In fact he uses it so often and in such a cavalier fashion that it grew to be annoying and I was tempted to simply stop reading. Unfortunately, his repeated mantra against Todd Friel of "You're a Platonic dualist!" didn't become any more reasonable after reading this book.

The Holistic Gospel

It would be appropriate to move on from the Greek Bogeyman to what I think is a great contradiction in this book: namely, right after condemning the early church for supposedly introducing Platonic dualism, Pagitt begins a lengthy (about two or three chapters) discussion on how holism helps the gospel story. In other words, right after condemning the introduction of Platonic dualism because it was not compliant with the Hebrew scripture, Pagitt then introduces holism into the Hebrew scripture! Indeed, he gives it credit for forming his theology: "Once I started thinking about and experiencing Christianity through the lens of holism connection, I understood it in a completely new way" (pg. 89).

The importance of holism becomes crystal clear in this section of the book:
The theology of holism is a theology of invitation, of welcome, of God saying, “Look what I’m doing. Come and join me.” The assumption is that God is present in all things, that we can find truth and nobility and righteousness and purity and loveliness in all things. In Romans 8:28, the apostle Paul writes about this Shema understanding: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” It’s right there: “in all things.” Not only in the special things. Not only in the holy things. Nothing is outside the read and presence of God. [pg. 90-91]
Two things become obvious here. The first one is that we now know why we had to challenge the authority of the Bible: the Bible is not the authority on our theology, but rather the holistic theology which we are now to accept has authority over the Bible. In removing the "constraints" he spoke of earlier, Pagitt has now introduced the new authority: holistic doctrines. The second obvious revelation is that Pagitt is preaching a kind of "better life now" theology, where we are to serve God better in the here and now.

Later on Pagitt will write:
The story of the gospel is so much better than the legal model suggests. It tells us that we are created as God’s partners, not God’s enemies. Sin does a lot of damage to that partnership - it disables us, it discourages us, it disturbs us - but it never destroys the bond that exists between God and humanity. [pg. 153]
This boils down to what could be called integration theology. In other words, we work in a special relationship with God in society to make it a better place, and this alone makes one close to God. Part of this is the idea that body and soul are not separate but one, and in serving the physical needs you are also serving the spiritual needs - even if you don't mention or do anything remotely spiritual at all.
I’m not trying to make the case that meeting physical needs is as important as meeting spiritual needs. I’m making the case that there is no difference, that there are not separate categories of need, that when we minister to people, we minister to the whole person. This is the implication of holism, not that we pick one side of the old debate between caring for physical needs and caring for the soul but that we understand and live in the reality that the “difference” between them is not what we may have thought it was. [pg. 85]
Our spirituality then comes from our works, and we improve our life with God by living what are perceived are godly lives.
The good news in all this is that sin never gets the last word. We can live our lives in a collective way, so the systems that cause disharmony with God can be changed. We can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being. Our bodies can experience healing. In other words, we can be born-again, new creations. [pg. 167]
The focus, then, is the better life now. This includes things that may not even be considered Christian - and, ironically enough, Pagitt believes there's scripture for this.
Reading the Bible with holism as our framework changes much about what we’ve long assumed the Bible to say. A few years ago a friend pointed me to a well-known section of the Bible, one that is often used to encourage Christians to circle the wagons in an effort to keep out the so-called dark forces of the world, Philippians 4:8-10. It reads, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things.” Though we might not like to admit it, the theology of separation and distinction assumes that the “other” must be also be the “lesser.” It assumes that there are far more bad “whatevers” than good ones and that it is only by limiting our engagement that we can follow God. But my friend sees it differently. He says, “I don’t think that means we’re supposed to limit our engagement through some elitist selection process of only the right things. I think it means we should be open to the ‘whatever.’” That is a wonderful way to find the life of God - to look for the true and lovely and admirable in all places. [pg. 90-91]
I was already familiar with Pagitt's distortion of Philippians from a news interview between him and John MacArthur (link). Just as when I saw that video, when I read Pagitt's quotation of it here I couldn't help but notice he leaves out what Paul writes immediately after: "What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you" (Philippians 4:9). The things that are good are the things of God, not something that sounds good.

The Question of the Afterlife

As the reader can tell, much of the book focuses on what we can do in this life we have. Perhaps one of the most interesting absences present in the book, then, is any discussion of an afterlife. With such an emphasis on the here-and-now, what room is there for heaven and hell? Pagitt even recounts a meeting with a woman who noticed that very thing - and his reaction is rather alarming.
I was talking about this idea with a friend, explaining this notion that God is about inviting us into life, that God is active in the process of eliminating from our lives whatever keeps us from living in rhythm with God. She responded by saying, “If Christianity isn’t primarily about the promise of an afterlife for those who believe the truth, how could we ever convince someone to be Christian? What do we have to offer?” She was completely sincere, but I was taken aback. I don’t mean to disparage her question - questions are what move us deeper into life with God. But for me, the idea of following a God who is in all things, who is inviting us to join in the work that is true and noble and pure, is so beautiful and appealing that I can’t imagine why we would offer anything else. [pg 93]
I had to read this twice to make sure I hadn't misread it. Pagitt had responded to the question of what a gospel with no afterlife has to offer with the notion that a gospel which teaches a good life here in this world is far more "appealing," and he "can't imagine why we would offer anything else."

Why should we offer anything else? Why would we offer anything else! The focal point of the gospel is the promise of eternal life with God. In one of the most famous passages of the New Testament, our Lord said:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16; emphasis mine]
Paul wrote to the Philippian church:
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith - that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [Philippians 3:7-11; emphasis mine]
This was why the Eternal Word of God descended - so that we may ascend with Him to the Father (cf. Eph 4:9-10). This is why the vast majority of the original apostles were willingly martyred, and why so many in the early church up until the Edict of Milan accepted martyrdom happily. This is why even today, all over the world, there are Christian missionaries willing to die - and are dying - because of their faith in Christ. It is because they believe on the day of judgment they will be before their Lord, and He will welcome them into His arms and into paradise. For Pagitt to so casually write "I can’t imagine why we would offer anything else" is a slap in the face to all of those who have suffered hoping and praying for the age to come.

Of course, what comes along with the notion of an afterlife is the notion of the judgment of God. What is Pagitt's definition of judgment?
Judgment, then, is not complete when God’s anger is satisfied but when our integration with God is re-created. In our culture we tend to think of justice being brought about when a guilty person gets the proper consequence. But justice isn’t about paying someone back or even making people pay for what they did. Justice is best understood as redemption or reconciliation. The Old Testament uses the Hebrew word karem in many of the passages about God’s judgment. It means “healing” or “remaking” or “returning something to its intended purpose.” God’s justice is the restoring of things to the way they ought to be. We are intended to live with God and to live like God. Sin derails that effort. When the disintegration stops and integration arrives, God’s judgment is complete. [pg. 159]
Those who read my review of The Shack may remember that one of my laments about the book was the extremely vague view on judgment and the incompatibility with what scripture says regarding judgment. Judgment in The Shack was said to be "not about destruction, but about setting things right." Here, Pagitt seems to be teaching a similar kind of judgment; judgment is not about heaven or hell, but about healing and making things right. Yet even if a "healing" judgment exists in the Hebrew text, it is not the only type of judgment spoken about. Pagitt's argument regarding the word karem, in this regard, seems to suggest this is the only Hebrew word for judgment that is used - yet then what of words like shepheṭ, which does refer to a judicial act of judgment? Or the Hebrew word dı̂yn, which likewise refers to a legalistic kind of judgment and is used in reference to God.

The weakness of this theology was I believe perfectly illustrated in the interview with Todd Friel, where Pagitt was confronted with verses that dealt with a kind of judgment that was anything but remaking. Scripture is crystal clear that there will be a day of judgment, and men will be held accountable for their lives, and in the end some will be sent into hell and others into the bosom of Abraham. In response to these kind of arguments, Pagitt can only beat his drum of Platonic dualism - but when that is revealed to be the emperor's new clothes, what is your theology left with?

The Meaning of Sin and the Role of Jesus

Writing largely in response to the popular theology of the fall of man, Pagitt explains:
Yet even in the midst of this struggle, Adam and Eve partnered with God. They still cared for the land as they were created to do. They still brought children into the world. They were even part of the plan for all the strife to end and death to lose its power. Their story goes on, with the whole of creation living in fits and starts of participation with God.

This story never suggests that the sin of Adam and Eve sends them into a state of depravity. There is nothing in the story that tells us that God steps over to the other side of some great chasm once Eve bites down on that fruit. Certainly there is sin, but the result of sin is a change in our relationship with God and with others, not a change in the basic makeup of humanity. The creation story tells us that although we are capable of tragic missteps, God’s hope and desire is for us to continue to join in to the good things God is doing in the world. We are still capable of living as the children of God. [pg. 136]
One can't help but wonder if perhaps the problem in Pagitt's theology is that whole sections of his Bible have fallen out. God may have not left mankind, but mankind certainly left God, for they were kicked out of the garden where mankind had full communion with God before, and a flaming sword was kept to guard the doorway and keep man from entering (Gen 3:24). It is likewise remarkable that he outlines the "result of sin is a change in our relationship with God and with others" when we are told by scripture "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) - something rather far more critical than a mere "change in relationship." Those who have not accepted Christ are described as being "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3), and we are told that all mankind is "under sin," so that "none is righteous, no, not one," for "no one seeks after God" (Rom 3:9-11). Like Joel Osteen, Doug Pagitt would have us believe that committing a sin amounts to losing some benefits at work - yet scripture says plainly that is far from the case. Sin is much, much more serious than a simple hiccup in our relationship with God.

Many of Pagitt's attacks on the doctrine of sin aim at the teaching of man's depraved nature. Appealing to emotion, Pagitt asks if anyone walks by a natal ward and thinks they are looking at a group of miserable sinners-to-be, and suggests that instead we should believe men are all inherently good as God made us good. He attacks traditional Christian thought in this regard, and yet it was never denied that man was made good by God, as one early Reformation creed admits:
Q. 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?
A. By no means; but God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. [Heidelberg Catechism]
The question is, of course, when man fell, what did that mean? Did it mean a slight hiccup in man's relationship with God, or something far greater? Man entered a depraved state, yes, but it wasn't impossible to get out of it. God first identified the sin in man's depraved state with the Law, and then freed man from the depraved state and the Law through the redemptive and salvific sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This brings us to the biggest question: if sin is not that big of a deal, and God's relationship with man wasn't damaged all that much, and scripture is not all that important...then what role did Jesus Christ have? Doug Pagitt brings that question forward himself near the end of the book:
Over the past few years, as my faith has been rearranged from my understanding of an integrated God and all the good that follows from that belief, there has been a shadowy side, a question I’ve hardly dared ask: What happens to Jesus?

The Greek version of the Christian story provides an ideal place for Jesus: He is the one who connects us with God. He is the bridge. He is our way out of our depraved state. He is the blood sacrifice paid out for our redemption to appease the blood God. But if there is no cosmic court case, why do we need Jesus? If there is no gap, why do we need Jesus? If sin is really our “dis-integration” with the life of God and not an ontological problem of our humanity, why do we need Jesus? [pg. 174-175]
Reading this, obvious questions come to mind: is Pagitt saying Christ isn't the bridge that connects us with God? He isn't our way out of our depraved state? He isn't the blood sacrifice paid for our redemption? Then why are we told "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5)? Why are we told that Christ reconciled "us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (Eph 2:16)? Why are we told that Christ canceled "the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:14)? I know, I know, that's the Platonic dualism talking...then again, I'm only quoting the apostle Paul. How then does Doug Pagitt reconcile the clear message of the New Testament with his idea of integration theology?
Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god. Jesus was sent to fulfill the promise of the Hebrew love God by ending human hostility. It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people. This world God created is one of peace and harmony and integration. Through Jesus, all humanity is brought into that world. And that is the point of the resurrection...But his resurrection is was about peace, compassion, renewal. The resurrection is the full picture of God’s promise. [pg. 194]
As you can see...he actually doesn't. Having taken out any need for a resurrection, Pagitt makes the resurrection nonsensical. He assures us he hasn't, but that is what he has done, and damage control is minimal at best. Having taken out the need for atonement of sins, Pagitt makes the crucifixion nonsensical. How then does he comply this with his distorted view of Christ's ministry? "Ah, it's all about renewal!" Surely, according to Pagitt's own theology, sending a man to be scourged, beaten, mocked, and crucified, and all before friends and family, was the wrong way to go about that. Pagitt assures us, however, this is all part of the plan, even though it seems like there would surely be greater reasons for all of it.

The most obvious conclusion is that this turns Christ into simply a good example, like so many universalists and agnostics make Him out to be. Pagitt at times assures the reader this isn't what he's doing, but in the concluding remarks of his Christology says this:
Jesus is the fulfillment of what people are meant to do, who we are meant to be. Just as Adam showed us what disobedience looks like, Jesus shows us what full integration looks like. Just as Adam made disharmony with God possible, Jesus made partnership with God attainable. He is our way, our truth, our life, our Messiah. [pg. 208]
There you are - Christ is indeed simply a good example. He was simply the "fulfillment of what people are meant to do." He served no other purpose than to promote the "integration" theology which Pagitt promotes. This isn't the biblical Christ, nor does it give us a Christ worth worshiping.

Conclusion

Emergent leaders use the same tactics in their books and lessons: a personal life story followed by an applicable theological lesson; very little use of scripture, and if any is used most commonly out of context; most of all, they commonly say, "Oh, we're not teaching that! Let me explain..." followed by an exact definition of what they claimed they weren't teaching. The obviousness of this latter point is sometimes so unintentionally humorous that I'm suddenly reminded of the end of An American Tail, where the villain is revealed to be a cat in disguise but says to the mice: "C'mon, who are you gonna trust? Me, or your own eyes?"

What Christianity has Pagitt presented us? We are taught that sin isn't a serious issue, that Jesus was simply an example of what we're meant to do, that the crucifixion wasn't necessary in the long run, that the afterlife isn't important, and that we can learn a lot more from holistic medicine than we can the Bible. At what point does this become Christianity? How can this be Christianity? The role of Christ is diminished and our role with God is simply played out in a post-modern ideal that borders along pantheism. You can call it spirituality, but you can't call it Christianity.

So what is a Christianity worth believing? I would move the Christianity we are taught in the word of God by the Eternal Word of God and His blessed apostles. The Christianity that promises eternal life through faith in Christ, so that we may be justified before the Father on the day of judgment, when the real "renewal" - not in holistic nature but in the body of believers who will be purified and sanctified forever - takes place. Upon no other form of Christianity should we take our stand. Amen.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

A Simple Review of "A Generous Orthodoxy"

This is a repost of something I had on my older blog.

When I first saw the cover of Brian McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy long long ago, I thought at first - given the title - it was about Eastern Orthodoxy. This was quickly dashed when I saw the front cover declare that McLaren is a "missional, Evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, Charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglical, Methodist, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, Emergent," and "unfinished" Christian. What he essentially means by this is that he believes merits are shared across denominational lines in a kind of ecumenical spirit.

The term "orthodox" was developed in relation to a scriptural faith and tradition. Is McLaren seeking this methodology? Unsurprisingly, no. McLaren's method of figuring out what is "orthodox" seems to be picking what sounds good. Read, for example, his reason for his faith:
This is why, for starters, I am a Christian: the image of God conveyed by Jesus as the Son of God, and the image of the universe that resonates with this image of God best fit my deepest experience, best resonate with my deepest intuition, best inspire by deepest hope, and best challenge me to live with what my friend, the late Mike Yaconelli, called "dangerous wonder," which is a starting point for a generous orthodoxy. [pg 85]
Yet should we resonate with Jesus because He fits our "intution," "experience" and "hope"? Hope, perhaps, but intuition and experience? This sounds like dangerous theology similar to the Charismatic belief that one should ignore lexicons, Church history, and even scripture so long as you feel like you're doing the right thing. It puts the standards of orthodoxy on the individual person rather than scripture. Arius, Nestorius, and Origen would all applaud this idea, but the Christian theologians throughout the ages would be shocked at the notion that Jesus is defined by man, rather than the other way around.

Of course, the problem with the Emergent movement is that it seeks to make the message of God "nice" - not "nice" in a good way, but in a way that demotes it to appease society's contemporary standards of morals. One example of this is in trying to present Jesus with the popular idea that He is nothing but this sweet, lovable guy who never contradicts or corrects:
Against this backdrop, theistic determinism is just another determinism, and in that case, talking about God as the all-powerful, all-controlling Lord/King is just more bad news, reducing us to plastic chessmen on a board of colored squares, puppets on strings in a play we don't write, characters in a video game that we aren't even playing, cogs in a contraption whose levers and buttons God and God alone pulls and pushes...

Good news under these circumstances would be a leader who liberated us from all determinism, who deconstructed oppressive authority and the self-interest of leaders and nations, who destabilized the status quo and made way for a better day; who delivered us not only from corrupt power, but also from the whole approach to power that is so corruptible... [pg 90]
Jesus apparently does this, as McLaren explains that the term "Jesus is Lord" is not the same as "Caesar is Lord." He redefines the very definition of a master-servant relationship.
"I no longer call you servants," Jesus says, "but friends." He sets a shocking example of revolutionary mastership by stripping down to his undergarment and washing the feet of his disciples, something only a slave would do (never a master!), and thus highlights that this is his absurd, unheard-of way of showing mastery - by serving. He commands his disciples to practice this inverted form of leadership by humble service ("not as the gentiles," he says), so the last are first, and the first, last. No one can call Jesus "Lord" without letting Jesus define the word in this radical, revolutionary new way. Otherwise they're letting lords other than the Lord determine what the word means. [pg 92]
The problem is that McLaren contradicts himself when he admits, on the same page, that Jesus is still "the leader who gives commands," and whose commands "should be followed wholeheartedly." Such a person would, by McLaren's original definition of determinism, be a tyrannical Lord. In fact, the passage McLaren quotes from (John 15:15) is preceded by Jesus saying, "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." This doesn't sound like someone who wanted to change a master-servant relationship.

Yet why did Jesus call the disciples His friends? McLaren leaves that out from the original passage. He said that He no longer called them servants "for a servant does not know what his master is doing," but now He calls them friends because "all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you." Contrary to what McLaren might have you assume, Jesus didn't choose the disciples as friends because they were good drinking buddies or enjoyed the same sports teams.

Also left out is what Jesus said to the disciples when He washed their feet.
"Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them." [John 13:12-17]
Christ was performing humility to teach the disciple's humility. When Christ humbled Himself, He did not cease becoming God, nor, as Christ affirms here, did He cease becoming the Authority over man.

Some might accuse me of distorting McLaren's words by pointing out that Jesus did teach His disciples humility, and McLaren mentions this. I would agree - however, remember that McLaren identifies this person-to-person humility and then declares "no one can call Jesus 'Lord' without letting Jesus define the word in this radical, revolutionary new way." Yet the reason we call Jesus "Lord" and why we call an earthly leader "lord" are two vastly separate reasons. It almost comes across as suggesting that God put Himself on equal with mankind. Though Christ took on a full humanity, He maintained a full Deity, and at all times He was still God. He humbled Himself (past-tense) as a man, yes, but then He rose again in a spiritually glorified body - He is our Lord.
One might say that the statement by McLaren that saying "Jesus is Lord" was different than saying "Caesar is Lord" is true, but not for the same reason McLaren says. He attempts to say that "Jesus is Lord" signified something smaller than Caesar - in fact, it represented something far greater! The ancient Romans recognized this surely. They knew that when Christians spoke of their Lord, they spoke of someone with greater power than Caesar could ever dream of. For the Romans, in particular the Caesars who considered themselves a deity on par with Pharaoh, the implications of the statement "Jesus is Lord" were so clear that they attempted genocide of the Christian faith.

It should be noted that I have no doubt that God is a loving God. The problem is that McLaren first admits God cannot be defined, then seeks to define Him in ways that really do not do Him justice. This is the greatest fault in the Emergent movement: the modernization of God. Instead of addressing common misconceptions regarding differences between the God of the Old and New Testaments, McLaren seems to embrace them - nay, give them validity. He then attempts to play with them, perhaps in an attempt to save God face, but in doing so only turns the argument against himself.

Most telling is McLaren's suggestion of a God A and God B: God A (obviously the God of the Old Testament) is aggressive, cruel and forceful, whereas God B (Jesus and the New Testament God) is friendly, loving, and kind. He writes that when people met Jesus, their understanding of God was "revolutionized."
Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God A created it: a universe of dominance, control, limitation, submission, uniformity, coercion. Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God B created it: a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality, freedom. I'm not sure which comes first - the kind of universe you see or the kind of God you believe in, but as a Christian who believes in Jesus as the Son of God, I find myself in universe B, getting to know God B. [pg 85]
This teaching by McLaren is dangerously close to Marcionism, an early heresy founded by a Gnostic who believed Jesus to belong to a new God while the Hebrew God of the Old Testament was an entirely different Being - in fact, Jesus had been sent to free humanity from the first God. Fans of McLaren might interject and say, "No no, he's talking about how the understanding of God changed for those who met Jesus! It was still the same God!" Nevertheless, the understanding of God from the old covenant to the new changed only in the sense that the Trinity was revealed - and yet, we can see examples of the Trinity within the Old Testament, or at least predictions of it (for example, God appears as three men to Abraham, yet Abraham addresses the group as one). It did not change the "personality" of God as perceived by the Jews or early Christian Gentiles. No where did the apostles ever say anything similar to, "Wow, God, You're a lot nicer than we thought You were!" For certain, they would be familiar with the fact that Moses spoke to God as one does a friend (Exo 33:11) and that Abraham is called many times a friend of God (2 Chro 20:7; Isa 41:8). Christ was not the first incident of a "friendly deity," nor did the Old Testament examples I just give redefine the relationship between God and man.

Of course, it is part of the plan to use Christ's calling of the apostles "friends" to present the Emergent Church's belief of a socially aware and politically correct God. Oftentimes, men such as McLaren are found bending over backwards to try to appeal to modern senses regarding ancient scripture. The most shocking part of the book is one such example: McLaren discusses God's gender in a section rife with political correctness.
This is as good a place as any to apologize for my use of masculine pronouns for God in the previous sentence. You'll notice that wherever I can, I avoid the use of masculine pronouns for God because they can give the false impression to many people today that the Christian God is a male deity. God is not a male. Instead God is personal (we might say super-personal) in a way that human maleness and femaleness together image better than either can alone. Maleness and femaleness are biological categories, and God is Life beyond biological categories...

There are many ways of trying to overcome this dilemma. Some of these solutions are using she for a while, in a kind of linguistic affirmative action (which disturbs some, satisfies others), or using he with the understanding that it means personal but non-exclusively-male when referring to her (which disturbs others and satifise some and mirrors rather than solves the current problem, thus creating a second wrong, which, for many people, including myself, doesn't add up to a right solution). Others suggest using s/he (which creates the additional problems of requiring him/her, his/hers, etc., and which suggests "both/either male and female" but not necessarily "comprising and beyond male and female"). Another option is capitalizing He (which for some succesfully moves the male masculine pronoun beyond human masculinity to divine Personality, but for others creates a kind of Super-Masculinity, which is even worse). These days I simply try to avoid pronouns altogether, but use them when I must for stylistic reasons, and hereby beg the reader's pardon, reaffirming my belief (shared by C.S. Lewis, et al.) that God is not a male or a female, whatever pronouns we use. [pg 82-83]
How much can one talk about nothing?

In all the blood, sweat and tears poured by the Church Fathers, I don't think they ever wasted so much time regarding the pronoun used for God. One could have simply ended this discussion with, "God has no gender," or "The translation of He from the original Hebrew text is often non-gender in origin." One could even just say, "I don't believe God has a gender." Yet if a person was seriously offended by any of this, then I believe they have much more to worry about than their opinion of God's gender.

McLaren's own overemphasis of it (he continues well into page 84 on the subject) makes me worry about his theological priorities. He shouldn't say he has to literally "apologize" for the use of masculine pronouns, in fact I don't think any great theologian in the past ever felt that compelled to do so. One never, in all of John Chrysostom's work, ever saw him pause from his exegesis to apologize to any readers offended by his use of "He" for God, let alone did he ever suggest, "Tell you what, let's call God 'She' for a while, just to be fair." To suggest using "she" simply to appease some people when Christ Himself referred to His Father as "He," let alone "Father," sounds as if you are ashamed of God's word. This is equally true of McLaren's statement that the biblical use of "Father" and "Son" also "contributes to the patriarchism and chauvinism that has too often characterized Christianity" (pg 83), when that "biblical use" is often by Christ. Was Christ a chauvinist? Should we be shamed of what Jesus said?

I recognize that some McLaren supporters might interject here with, "He isn't trying to criticize their use in the bible, but redefine them." The problem is that in identifying calling God "He" or "Father" presents a problem, McLaren thereby admits a problem exists when it doesn't. Furthermore, suggesting things such as calling God "she" for a while or "h/she" alternatively is trying to find a solution to a problem that McLaren has to admit God created - or, at the very least, continued in Christ.

As with most Emergent Church figures McLaren can be hard to criticize, because the language used is so vague that one has to dig deep to really understand what the person is implying. He attempts to come across as such a sweet-hearted, well intentioned man who just wants everyone to stop arguing and see the good in the world. As a result we forget where the humility of the Lord ends and the heresy of the world begins. A person may be fooled because nothing seems wrong, but the discerning reader may recognize that, as the writer ups the ante, the border between orthodoxy and heresy becomes faded until finally all sound doctrine is lost.

Many in the Emergent Church, like McLaren, attempt to paint Jesus as a social mover and revolutionary. Of course, if Christ merely came to make our world a better place here and now, then He failed, because when He ascended to heaven He left the world with still millions of poor, sick and oppressed individuals. Christ's goal, however, was not to better our lives in the here and now but to prepare us for the Kingdom of Heaven. What use would the Kingdom of Heaven be if our world was already heaven?

As Christ said, "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory" (Luke 9:26).

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Knowledge of Ourselves

The following is from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of Judges and the Prophetical Writings; so much so, that it was a common expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says (Isa 24:23), “The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign;” i. e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.

But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter. [I, 1, 1-3]

Sunday, August 22, 2010

The Sin of Suicide

This is something I posted up on my old blog. It features G.K. Chesterton’s exposition of suicide.
Under the lengthening shadow of Ibsen, an argument arose whether it was not a very nice thing to murder one’s self. Grave moderns told us that we must not even say “poor fellow,” of a man who had blown his brains out, since he was an enviable person, and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence. Mr. William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines, by which a man could kill himself for a penny. In all this I found myself utterly hostile to many who called themselves liberal and humane. Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence, the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings; it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meanings of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial of the crossroads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes - for it makes even crimes impossible. [Orthodoxy, Chapter V]

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

"A Mighty Fortress" by Steve Green

Probably the best rendition of the song I have ever heard. It was already a good song, but handled well (which seems so rare these days) it can be truly inspiring.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Mere Spirituality or Mere Theology?

Recently I was listening to a pastor talk about the great problem of universalism and liberalism within modern Christianity, especially among the youth. At one moment in his sermon he made the point that people today value spiritual feelings over basic theology. I was thinking on that later, and realized that truly, that is perhaps one of the greater problems facing the Church today: importance is put on mere spiritual feelings rather than true Christian orthodox theology. Before we continue, let's define these two terms.

When I say true Christian orthodox theology, I refer to the basic beliefs that designate Christianity from everything else. That is: salvation through Christ alone (John 14:6); salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8); the traditional morals as taught in scripture, and commands of God given to mankind (Ten Commandments); and so on and so forth. The entire written word can therefore fit into this mindset, and anything that goes against the written word must be considered heresy and acting against the word of God, given to us first by the God-breathed words of the prophets and then the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. The entirety of scripture and its teachings is therefore the "mere theology" we speak of.

When I say mere spiritual feelings, I refer to what many call the "spiritual high" coming from religious beliefs, and in particular during worship. The people who experience this or seek after it fall into various camps: (1) they get the previously mentioned "spiritual high" going to church, either through dance, song, the "gifts of the spirit," or a powerful sermon, but it has no long-standing effects, and therefore amounts to something like a drug high; (2) they go to church for social or traditional reasons (ie., their family goes, or they grew up in this particular denomination); (3) they go because they believe that this will somehow make them better than others - a very works-minded interpretation of worship. While any of these can lead to high emotions or feelings of closeness to God, they are superficial at best and temporary in the least. The emphasis is on the basic feeling received from worship, not the entirety of the worship itself. It is, at it's core, "mere spirituality."

It must be noted that spirituality in and of itself is not bad, but to isolate spirituality from instructions of the Church is to in essence nullify the word of God into a superficial and inconsistent emotion. It raises the emotion of worship above the limit it is meant to reach, and replaces it with the extreme version of emotionalism. From this stems our theology, because by this we live our worship. God endowed man with a thinking mind and a reacting heart, but the one who follows a mere spirituality not only does away with the mind, but the God who endowed both mind and heart as well. The commands of God are downplayed to the slavery of this emotionalism, and anything that contradicts this man-made theology is either thrown away, ignored, or twisted.

This is especially true in many Charismatic churches. People are so driven by the emotionalism of their worship that they begin to forsake sound doctrine not only as taught within their individual church or much larger denomination but within the entirety of scripture and orthodoxy itself. Subjective experience is placed above sound reason. This was best exemplified by an incident recounted by John MacArthur:
A woman wrote to me, seething. "You resort to Greek translations and fancy words to explain away what the Holy Spirit is doing in the church today. Let me give you a piece of advice that might just save you from the wrath of almighty God: put away your Bible and your books and stop studying. Ask the Holy Ghost to come upon you and give you the gift of tongues. You have no right to question something you have never experienced." [Charismatic Chaos, pg. 25, 1992; emphasis in original]
I can relate to this from personal experience. A woman at a church I used to attend defended the Trinity Broadcast Network regular Benny Hinn. Despite the fact that his "healing services" have been proven fraudulent by almost every news network in the western world and various heretical teachings have been identified and verified with recordings and video...she still defended him on the basis that: "You don't know what it's like to be under the Holy Spirit." This was her basis of orthodoxy - not the words of scripture which Hinn so often contradicted, not the recorded and documented instances of lies and distortions and deceiving, but rather the defense that a person who had never been "under the Holy Spirit" could not judge someone who supposedly had. Upon what basis is there for this kind of thinking in scripture!

Although this could unwittingly turn into an anti-Charismatic post, it would only be consistent to turn to other instances of this "mere spirituality" elsewhere, such as in liberal Churches. Spirituality is seen as a superficial thing, and mere belief (the kind of belief the apostle James identified as the belief of demons in James 2:19) is enough to win salvation. If we want, we can perform good works and from this we will earn our salvation (something Paul criticizes in Romans 4:4-5 and identifies the opposite as being true in Romans 3:27-28 and Ephesians 2:8-9). Many from this circle fall into universalism or "cafeteria Christianity," and no longer is orthodoxy adhered to but rather the personal philosophies and sentiments of the believers placed on the pulpit. Truly, how many times have we heard someone call themselves "Christian," when what they really meant was: "I have my personal beliefs and I stick Jesus in there somewhere." God is thrown down from His throne - He has no place there, these people say. Man, with his flawed sentiments, shall take over, for in his depraved state he knows much more than a righteous God. The realities presented by our Lord are done away with for the revisionist history of the post-modern church, which seeks to throw out all that came before, even if the baby Jesus is in that bathwater.

One would think that we should then introduce orthodoxy, but to the words "dogma" and "theology" many become reactionaries. Images of inquisitions and theocratic tyrannies are conjured up and used to scare people away. "People are not won by dogmas or theological treatises," some say, "you have to strike at emotions and how they feel." Isn't it ironic, then, that the apostle Paul - the greatest preacher to ever live - spent so many of his epistles dealing with theology and orthodox thought? His epistle to the Romans is, in essence, a giant theological manual. Entire sections of Colossians and Ephesians deal with theological matters and orthodox thought. Galatians was written to condemn believers going astray and to call them back to sound thinking. Why, then, are so many modern Christians scared of the words "dogma" and "theology"? Due to their abuse of certain historical powers? Yet we cannot say that "love" was never abused, if not by powers then by individuals, yet we would not cast "love" away. So therefore there is just as much a place for theology in the Church as there is for love.

That is truly the great marriage found in our spirituality - a true spirituality, given by God as a gift for the believer. It is not the memorization of a text, but the fulfillment of what that text means in our life. It is not the memorization of rules, but an understanding of by what spirit those rules came. The historical confessions - Nicaea, Westminster, London Baptist - never saved anyone, because they were by themselves not salvific. It was not what they said that saved, but from whence they taught that rendered them usable for men - that is, the word of God. By themselves they are but cold words on paper like those worshiped by the Pharisees, but in practice and with acknowledgment of their source they are spiritual food for the religious young and old alike.

Emotionalism is by contrast a cancer that destroys a believer by allowing the deceitful heart (cf. Jer 17:9) to rule the conscious intended to serve God's will and no one else's. From this harlot comes the children of universalism, spiritualism, and liberal theology, all within the family of heresy. The mission of these falsehoods is to deceive the believer into a false sense of individualism and easy believing, so that in seeking freedom they might become slaves. The cloak shrouded in these falsehoods is that product of emotionalism in which the person thinks that they are righteous by mere emotion alone. Theology has no place in their system because the minute they introduce true theology their man-made system falls apart. This is why such superficial standards as "You have to experience the Holy Spirit first" are devised. Paul did not condemn the false teachers of Galatia because they did not experience the Holy Spirit; he condemned them because they taught false doctrine contrary to that given by Christ. Yes, he condemned their theology.

Theology is the center of our worship. From our understanding of God and how He works comes our understanding of worship, of love, of grace, of mercy and the works of the spirit. It is by this theology that we love our neighbor, our enemy, and turn to repentance. This is where, as stated before, there is a great connection between our spirituality and our theology, because theology without the grace of God is simply dead religious thought. Yet our theology comes from a living God and a risen Savior, and it is this theology which we defend from all who would wish to assail or adulterate her. This theology keeps us from error and from false doctrine, and from its fountain, the word of God, we find the water of eternal life - Jesus Christ.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians

Much like my post here, this was written mostly for the benefit of the Muslim reader. I've seen this arguments used so many times that I've begun to wonder if Islamic apologetics are simply behind Christian apologetics by perhaps about ten years. Half of them I can only imagine are used to earn points on the Muslim side, as I've never seen a Christian (at least a semi-knowledgeable Christian) wowed or won over by any of them. I'm not writing this to mock or condemn, but hopefully to at least make the discerning Muslim think a little harder or argue a little better.

1. Jesus never said "I am God."

I often call this the "declaration fallacy." This is an incredibly popular argument to make (mostly thanks to Ahmed Deedat), which is unfortunate because it is one of the most fallacious to make, and for a few reasons:
  • We are told that Jesus never said the exact words, "I am God." Well, neither did He ever say "I am a prophet," nor "I am just a messenger" either. Therefore by the Muslim's own standards Jesus is neither God, prophet nor messenger. 
  • The mere statement "I am God" would not have to be given to prove that Jesus was divine. This would be like saying Hitler wasn't racist because he never said the exact words "I am racist." It's essentially inventing a scenario and then demanding the other person respond.
  • Even if Christ did say "I am God," those words alone would not make it true. If I wrote a blog entry where I simply said "I am God," would that mean Muslims had to worship me? I don't think so, yet this is the kind of logic being presented.
As I've said before, the old saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks, and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck"...but according to some Muslims that duck would never be considered a duck unless it stopped quacking and said "I am a duck."

2. There are textual variances in the Bible, therefore it's corrupt.

There are textual variances for every piece of literature before the invention of computers - that does not necessarily denote corruption. According to this logic, even accepted works of antiquity such as Plato's Republic are considered untrustworthy (although the New Testament is certainly far more trustworthy in terms of closeness to the authors and number of comparable manuscripts).

The variances within the New Testament itself is more a grammatical and spelling issue than theological. I often tell people to pick up a copy of the NASB and NKJV (two translations based on manuscript traditions several centuries apart) and show me any major theological differences between the two. One will not find any (unless you're a wild-eyed KJV-Onlyist).

Furthermore (and contrary to popular Muslim belief), there exist textual variances throughout the history of the Quran. While it is popular for Muslim scholars and laymen alike to claim there exist no variances in the Quran (mostly because they do not like even talking about the possibility), this is simply not the case. However, I would never use this as an excuse to say the Quran was untrustworthy, mainly because I believe in remaining consistent. Despite this, I have run into Muslims who will declare the Bible corrupt even if the variances are minor, yet will declare the Quran free of corruption because the variances are minor. This is a gross double standard.

3. There are no original New Testament manuscripts!

There are no original manuscripts of many works of antiquity, but I doubt most Muslims (at least the learned ones) will deny we don't know what they say. No one says that Plato's Republic is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the original copy writtten by Plato himself; likewise, no one will say that Caesar's Gallic Wars is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the first edition as those who first read it would have known.

The other problem with this argumentation is that it again presents a double standard - there does not exist an original copy of the Quran as held in the hands of Mohammad himself. Partially this is become the Quran only stopped being written after Mohammad died (thereby ending the continual revelations). This is also because, as sahih ("trustworthy") hadith sources say, all the originals were burned by Uthman when he made his "standard" Quran for Muslims to use. Therefore, according to this argumentation, even the Quran itself cannot be trusted! Once again, a self-defeating argument.

4. You can't use hadith sources!

This argumentation goes either one of two ways. Either...
Muslim: "Mohammad never did anything bad."
Non-Muslim: "What about what he said and did here?"
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can use that!"
Or...
Non-Muslim: "I think the Quran is saying this in that verse."
Muslim: "Actually, according to this hadith, this is what it meant."
Non-Muslim: "But this other hadith clarifies that and contradicts your whole point."
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can't use that!"
The most common argumentation lobbied in favor of this objection is, "Well, there's a scholarly way of showing what hadith sources are trustworthy and which aren't." My response is usually then, "Yes, I'm well aware of that, could you please show me then how these sources cannot be trusted using that criteria?" At that point, they can't answer. The whole argument is simply a non sequitor meant to distract from the damning evidence found within the hadith.

The fact is, many hadith sources are accepted by several Muslim scholars and many are even used for teachings on the daily Muslim lifestyle and theology. Many more are used to explain confusing beliefs found in the Quran. Like it or not, the hadith sources are an intricate aspect of Islamic theology. If a Muslim wishes to use this kind of argument, they had best be a Koran-only Muslim so that they can at least remain consistent. Otherwise, the whole thing will simply appear foolish.

5. The Council of Nicaea made the Bible!

There is not a shred of evidence that the Bible was collected at the Council of Nicaea, let alone that time period. Those who wish to contest this point may quote me which section of the Council of Nicaea dealt with the Bible. Otherwise, it is not worth mentioning.

Friday, August 6, 2010

For Muslims: Why Christians Do Not Believe

The following is a repost of something I had on my old blog.

I often cringe when I read attacks by Christians against Islam. They seem intent on insult rather than love, and ad hominems rather than reason. Simplified arguments or outright dismissal are often employed so much so that I begin to think the Christians writing are worse off than the Muslims. Sometime ago, while discussing this very subject on a forum, I created an explanation of the Christian point of view using both the Bible, the hadith sources, and the Koran to explain my point. I thought I would present it here for the benefit of both Muslims and Christians, and help explain just why so many Christians are quick to reject (and feel repulsed by) Islam.

First, let us review one important fact of Islam: it was begun when Mohammad was visited by a supposed angel.
Narrated 'Aisha:
He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family...The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read."

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3]
An angel physically attacks Mohammad, barks orders, terrifies him - all of which no angel has ever done. One can only wonder if the Gabriel of the New Testament had been the Gabriel of Islam, would he have physically attacked the Virgin Mary after her exclamation, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34)

This supposed angel then gives Mohammad a revelation that, over time, becomes the Koran. What does this revelation teach? Many things, including the following:
  • Christ is not divine (S. 5:116)
  • Christ was not crucified, let alone died on the cross or was resurrected (S. 4:157)
  • The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:73)
All of these contradict the Gospels specifically and the New Testament in general. This presents several problems, as shown by Christian scripture:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-3, 14]

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:6-8]

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. [2 John 1:7]
So Islam is begun by a message from a supposed angel that presents a new gospel that does not come from the Church, and one that preaches against what is taught in the New Testament. To Christians this is a major sign that the Koran is not of God. As Paul warns, even demons can appear as "angels of light" to deceive mankind.

One notable trait of the New Testament is that it continually quotes the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 2 alone you find Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1 quoted. Move on to Acts 3 and you'll find Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19 quoted along with Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Moving away from Acts, Romans 9 has twelve Old Testament citations from five different books. It goes on and on from here. Find a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which has Old Testament citations in bold print, and you'll find an alarming number of pages lit up.

The point is the early apostles, right or wrong, knew their Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, they used that scripture to confirm the teachings of Christ. They did not argue that the Jews had corrupted their scripture, hid scripture, or tarnished it in any way. Rather, they argued with the scripture and kept it intact. The Old Testament confirmed the New Testament, rather than the New Testament confirming the Old Testament.

Now I recognize that it is common for Islamic apologetics to immediately jump to the argument that the Bible was tarnished. Nevertheless, the Koran itself states that the Torat and Injil were the books sent down to God's people.
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). [S. 3:3]
And yet we find something very different in the Koran than we do in the New Testament: no direct citations or quotes. Instead, what we have is the name-dropping of various Biblical prophets and vague references to certain events like the flood. Nowhere in the Koran is the Old Testament or the New Testament directly cited. The question is...if Allah did indeed send down the Torat and Injil, why couldn't He quote it at least once? If Mohammad really is foretold in the Old and New Testaments as the Koran claims (S. 7:157), why couldn't the Koran cite relevant passages to confirm Mohammad, like the apostles did in the New Testament to confirm Jesus Christ?

What we have here, then, is not only a revelation that contradicts what came before, but seems to completely ignore it. It mentions the Jewish and Christian scripture as books sent from God, but refuses to quote them. It states that the Jewish and Christian scriptures confirm Islam and Mohammad, but can't even quote one passage to prove their point. The question that every Christian must then ask is: why did God change His method of revelation? Why must we suddenly abandon what we knew and believed simply because a man 600 years later claims prophethood without engaging in meaningful exegesis? It is very ironic that the devil, when tempting Christ, quoted scripture more often than the Koran did.

This is a brief but I hope helpful explanation on the topic. Any questions or concerns, feel free to respond to the post.

Monday, August 2, 2010

New personal update

Tomorrow I head to seminary to begin studying for a Master of Divinity. For the past three or four days I've been busily packing and organizing, giving up what I don't need for charity or to sell, while keeping the bare bones of what I'll need. I suppose in some way this is God's method of helping me do away with the luxuries I accumulated during my young adult life. As many of my older readers may notice, St. Panteleimon is still with me, securing himself among the cargo as he did in my move last year.

I ask for nothing more than prayers for a safe trip to my new home, as well as an eventful year. I'm a mixture of fear and happiness right now, but I know I'm heading out into God's hands. I pray I'm a servant of no one's will but His. Amen.