4 posts tagged “apologetics”
Here's a link to Albert Mohler's blog, and a list of recent MP3 downloads from his radio program. I am so blessed to have access to the internet and to the radio where I found this fella, and absolutely love his program and stand for truth. Men like Dr. Mohler and Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. R.C. Sproul and others have really taken bold stands for truth in an age of "truth decay", so to speak.
In any event, Dr. Mohler, without consulting me or my blog (believe it or not), has taken a stand against the book by Paul Young called The Shack, which I blogged about a while back. Needless to say, he took the liberty of reading the book after some friends of his asked his 2 cents on the matter. Let me be concise and summarize:
1) The book is decidedly NOT analogous to Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" (as touted by Eugene Peterson on the cover of the book). Why? Where Bunyan wrote within the confines of what is known as orthodox Christianity, in several places Young makes references (through "Papa" or God's character in the book) to being "beyond" any single definition of truth, and in fact makes claim that there are many people that God reaches in various faith traditions beyond Christianity (i.e.: Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). Dr. Mohler pointed out on the program today that the author of The Shack made it clear that these 'believers' or saved members of the Church were not Buddhists, Muslim, Hindu, etc. in a "past tense" sense, but were actively engaged in their faith traditions. And yet: Christ went to them and saved them, according to the dialogue in the book. This is confounding, in Dr. Mohler's words. To say the least!
In short, The Shack is not an analogue of the faith, it is a revision of the faith. The theology of The Shack is heterodox, not orthodox, in its presentation of the Christian God and salvation.
2) Sin does not result in Hell in so much as sin is something that God wishes to "cure" us of. The wrath of God is eschewed in favor of a healing, therapeutic God.
3) "Undiluted heresy" is what you'd find in the "God" and theology of the book. Again: Dr. Mohler's words. The theology of The Shack is "another gospel," when compared to God's self-revelation contained in the Bible alone. What was it that Paul the Apostle said of those who come with another gospel?
Let them be "anathema," in English, "Let them be damned."
It was puzzling, in Mohler's words, to find that this book is so popular, and has had the effect it has had ("life changing," "I understand God better now than I ever have," etc.), in light of the fact that it sheds no light on the subject of the nature and character of God. It is no small thing that heresy makes for best-selling fiction. Of greater concern is the fact that Christians think that this book makes for good reading, and sacrifice truth for the sentimental experience presented in The Shack.
Here's a link to Phil Johnson's conclusion on an argument of how Paul (the apostle) presented truth in a straightforward, don't mince words or play pussy-foot with rebukes, sort of way. Good readin'.
Phil Johnson and others blog at Pyromaniacs. You may recall he was the fella behind the Intelligent Design arguments? Wait, no, this isn't that Phil! Phil Johnson is another cat altogether, actually in league with Grace to You (broadcast ministry of John MacArthur), been bloggin' since 1995.
I discovered him on Purgatorio just this morning. I love his straightforward, manly approach to truth, and wish that we weren't in an age where it's so out of step to live this out:
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
Yesterday I wrote about a book I shuddered at and dismissed out of hand. Though I don't think that the point of the story (i.e.: God's love, especially during our suffering) is moot (actually, those who know the Hussey's could make a case that's all we ever talk about!), I still maintain that introducing the masses to an idol and misrepresentation of God to do so is inherently wrong.
The cool part: my kids got to see their daddy spontaneously combust before their very eyes during Family Bible reading time (a.k.a. "lunch"). I think I did that while bloggin, too...
I also had the great pleasure of listening to four of my pastor's sermons on our MP3 playa yesterday at work. During one sermon on Exodus, he (Brad Chaney) preached on a bit of how, after 400 years of living in pagan Egypt, the Israelites were still distinct from Egyptian culture.
In other words: they didn't believe in syncretism. Their identity was so Jewish that Pharoah wanted to commit "ethnic cleansing" and kill them off. The Egyptian leadership was uncomfortable with their distinct Hebrew culture.
Why do I mention that? Simply: I lament the "melting pot theory" of American culture. Christians: we are not free to "melt" and "blur" so as to become indistinguishable from the culture. We have to walk the line and be Christians: deliberately different.
(I think of a dear friend of mine, and our conversations about this topic: we both struggle in this area. If I'm preaching, I preach to myself first.)
After reading a post on friend's blog about a certain book I won't plug here,
(O.K., that just won't do, I will refer to it, but will NOT plug/endorse it!!! here: it's called "The Shack" by Wm. Paul Young...IMHO: Great book for starting the first BBQ grill fires this summer...but to read it? Save your $crilla. Fo' rilla.)
I began to read reviews of the book from two sites. One site was the author's own site: go figure, I had to post the only negative comment on the site. I think the author won't suffer it long, I'm pretty sure he's got a cleaning crew to man that one pretty well and scrub-a-dub-dub my post into obliteration. Just in case you happen there, my post is under "just James," and it's done in my typical kind, generous and not-at-all sarcastic tone. The link: http://www.windrumors.com/43/the-beauty-of-ambiguity-mystery/#comment-1102
My point is that I read the glowing reviews on the author's site, (funny bunny trail, but great sales tip: he entreats everyone to write a "5-star review on Amazon!"...shameless...but $mart, man, $$$mart!) and was saddened at the lack of discernment from the crowd. Contrast that to the Proverbs take on flattery...well, you get the drift.
The other site I went to was Tim Challies' blog, where I read a not-so-flattering review of the book, but was told of the sacrificing of truth done in the book. Personally: I won't bother reading the book. Then again, I didn't read "The DaVinci Code" like the pundits required of me, and didn't want to bother with the movie, either. Truth is: who has time to be trendy? (I'm NOT saying this as a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing fingers at ANYONE, BTW.) Seriously, life is a gift, and there are things I do to waste time here and there (call it "unwinding"), but to read a book like this would just give me an ulcer and incense me at the travesty of not portraying God as He has revealed Himself (good grief: I hope I don't entice anyone to read the thing!).
Honestly, if you haven't read or heard of Tim Challies, and you love books or thinking like a Christian or whatnot, then he's a good fella I'd recommend wholeheartedly. The good news is that my wife brought up the book review idea, punched in Challies.com, and I read the review aloud to her and all 72 comments...by the time you read this post it may be more. So, thanks to Paul Young for reuniting me with a long-lost friend, Mr. Challies! Yay! See? It wasn't all bad news. BTW: here's Challies link:
Interestingly, he's written a book on discernment entitled "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment." Go figure.
All this to say:
I can't stand the "Emergent Church" movement, which the book has everything to do with, BTW (no, I told you: I didn't read it--just 150 reviews from those who have)--and it reminds me:
Has truth and discernment been rolled up like a scroll? Has truth given way to the more fashionable "emotional experience" or specifically "relationship" with an amorphous and ambiguous 'god'? Read the reviews on Amazon.com or even Eugene Peterson's glowing endorsement (the fella that penned "The Message" bible...more on that another time perhaps)--it's all about the experience of the reader when they weep through the book. Don't get me wrong: I embrace that we're emotional critters. I married Tasha and through living life, she's taught me more on that note than anyone could, so I respect emotions as a created phenomenon of our human expression. Somehow, we reflect the glory of God in having emotions, being that we're created in His image. However: when the question comes down to the false dichotomy (the logical fallacy or error that says either "A" is true or "B" is true, they cannot both be true, basically) that it's the truth of Scripture vs. a "real relationship with Christ." It's an old, old ruse of the devil: on one "team" you have the experience, on the other "team" is the truth. Read about it in the history of the Protestants' Reformation and the Roman Catholic's Counter-Reformation. Guess what? Back then Rome told their adherents that we crazy Protestants may have had the truth, but they had the "Spirit." That translated into a fore-runner of the current Pentecostal movement with false miracles and signs and "wonders." Small "m, s and w".
The book "The Shack" does in story form what the Gnostics did in polemic and rhetoric (forms of arguing) in the ancient period: it claims to offer a hidden or secret knowledge, a secret relationship with God that somehow the current mainline Christian traditions cannot offer their members.
Call me an old stick in the mud, but when you create a story, please don't re-create the Creator of THE Story, or at least have the decency to stick to the "old party line" of the God of the Bible as HE has revealed Himself (not "She/He" or some other egalitarian gobbledygook....).
Honestly, I have to say I'm so thankful that the review (on a fellow Voxer's page) brought me to the bunny trail of truth-seeking, but I lament this is how the book is received (speaking of the Amazon reviews and other places where glowing endorsements are rampant). It's almost as if some of the reviewers would use this book to trump the Bible, calling the novel a "one of a kind read" and "life changing--more than any other book I've read."
Funny thing is: I don't doubt that we all wish for a deeper relationship with Christ. I just don't think that the Bible is somehow going to play second-fiddle to Young's or anyone else's come-lately fad, hot off the press or not. Despite a longing for a deeper relationship with Christ, I think deep down the deeper truth is this:
The Bible is Sufficient for our Needs
In the doctrines of the Church (not the "Emergent Church," but THE Church universal), this is called the "Sufficiency of the Scripture." In the history of the church, the heresy of Young's book is called "Gnosticism." (Apparently it $ells.)
Here's a quote from former Christian giants on the subject of Truth:
Spurgeon said: “Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather, it is the difference between right and almost right.”
John Murray: “the difference between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor’s edge.”
James Hussey (a "giant" only in the flesh, but I'm losing weight, so there): "Dude. For real, though!"
What's up with that title, yo'? Well, if you aren't a member of the American public, or younger than I, or a Communist...maybe you missed the advent of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." If you have not seen the movie, don't read this as an endorsement to view it on Netflix or Redbox, but bear with me, you can still come along for the ride.
If you are hip on that jive, do you remember the line from the movie when Ben Stein called out role in the classroom, "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" ad infinitum?
Sort of like, "Use the Force, Luke!" as far as low-ball pop culture goes.
Well, Ben Stein's making a new movie, about the classroom in our country, and where the education of our youth runs up against the indoctrination of Darwinism.
Yeah, that's right: Ben Stein's making a case for Intelligent Design, in a movie! It's out this spring, and here's the link:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
I've just pulled it from Purgatorio (see my side-bar links), and was shocked to see the familiar Stein in a new movie. Further shocking was watching the clip on the site! It's utterly refreshing to see an icon of our generation turn apologist...well, even if it is for Intelligent Design and not full-bore Christianity, it's still such a salient point.
Makes me want to croon, "This is my Father's world, o! Let me ne'er forget..." alright. Forgot the rest...
Here's a video player for the trailer (I can't figure how to do it cooler than this link):
