|
The Chapel Light - July 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 |
A few more observations on the book of Revelation…so have your Bible open…
Did you notice that in Revelation 21 John introduces the New Jerusalem twice (21:1-2, 9)? And this isn’t the only place in Revelation where an event is narrated twice. The same thing happens in Revelation 12:6, where John says that the heavenly woman gives birth to a son; the son is taken to heaven and the woman flees into the wilderness to escape the dragon. This event is then reiterated in more detail in Revelation 12:13-17 after the depiction of the battle between the archangel Michael and the dragon Satan. Why note these things twice? What is the significance of this double reference?
I believe the answer lies in understanding some of the difficulties in recording a vision in written form. John’s senses are attuned to all of the things that he is seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting while in his “trance.” He is looking all around him; things are happening to his left, to his right, above him, below him, behind him. Some of these things are happening simultaneously; sometimes they are happening in a chronological order. In addition, many of the things which may take place minutes apart from each other may be related thematically. Somehow, all of these things must be conveyed so that the audience understands not only what John saw, but how the parts of the vision related to one another and what they therefore meant. Those involved in the television and movie industry now have this sort of conveyance of information down to a science. They know how to film various scenes and then put them together so that viewers are able to tell the chronological order of events – even if one scene is a flashback to the past – and we have become trained viewers; we pick up the subtle clues that indicate chronological connections as well as thematic connections.
Video is one thing; accomplishing all of those things in a written text is a whole different story – but I believe that that is precisely what John is trying to do in the two texts that I have mentioned above.
In the text of Revelation 12 John is watching “signs” in the sky; he tells us that he sees the child escape and then he sees the woman flee – but he doesn’t tell us what she’s fleeing from or why she’s fleeing. His attention then turns to a battle in heaven in which the dragon is cast down to earth by Michael and his angels, and the dragon in anger then pursues the “heavenly” woman – which indicates that her heavenly existence is symbolic, and that she really represents someone or some group living on the earth – but she escapes. I propose that John is trying to show us that these events are all happening very closely, and that they are all related. The child’s escape to heaven is related to the dragon’s failure to destroy him. The dragon’s failure to destroy him is related to his defeat in the battle of the angels. The dragon’s failures in these things generates his anger and explains his reason for directing his angry pursuit to the woman. Her escape explains his redirecting his attention to the woman’s other children. John demonstrates these thematic connections by noting the woman’s escape (12:6), then narrating the scene of the battle (12:7-12) and then re-narrating the woman’s escape (12:13-17). The two narrations are not about two separate escapes, but about the same escape. It is narrated twice to show the relationship of the “scenes.” We do the same thing with chase scenes in movies today.
John is doing a similar thing in Revelation 21. As I noted in last month’s Scrip, there is an important thematic relationship between the harlot (Babylon) and the bride (New Jerusalem). We can see this by comparing all of the visionary similarities between them. But there is also a chronological order to the vision, and John is very careful to note the progression of events. The apostle first sees the gaudy, bloody prostitute riding the hideous beast (17:1-6). An angel then tells John that someday the beast will turn on and destroy the prostitute; John never sees the destruction; he is simply told it will occur (17:7-18). “After these things” (18:1) an angel comes down from heaven describing how the fall of Babylon will be and the effect it will have on others in the world (18:2-20). “Then” (18:21) an angel throws a gigantic millstone into the sea and proclaims that Babylon will be thrown down violently. “After these things” John hears cheering in heaven over the fall of the prostitute (19:1-3) and watches the elders in God’s throne room fall down in worship (19:4). “Then” he hears a voice from the throne calling for praise (19:5) and again cheering erupts in heaven (19:6-8). An angel then tells John to write, and John falls down to worship the angel, but the angel rebukes him for doing so (19:9-10).
John then sees heaven open and Christ appears on a white horse leading the armies of heaven (19:11-16). He then sees an angel standing in the sun calling all the birds to come and eat the flesh of evil human beings (19:17-18). He then sees the beast and earth’s armies gathered together to make war against Christ, but tells us they are all captured or killed (19:19-21). He then sees an angel bind the devil and lock him in a pit (20:1-3). John then sees thrones and the souls of those beheaded sitting on them (20:4-10), and then one great white throne and all of the dead being judged by the one sitting on that great white throne (20:11-15). Finally, John sees a new heaven and a new earth (21:1); then he sees the New Jerusalem descending from heaven (21:2).
Pardon the lengthy detailing of the vision, but it’s important to understand that John had a difficult task here. First, he wants to make clear the chronological order of events portrayed in the vision: God uses the beast to destroy the prostitute (and there is great rejoicing in heaven over this); then Christ defeats the beast and the dragon is imprisoned while the saints reign with Christ. After this Satan is released and finally cast into hell; this is followed by a judgment of the dead, the establishment of the new heavens and new earth, and the arrival of the New Jerusalem. But he also needs to establish that this final episode – the arrival of the New Jerusalem – though separated by so many events in the vision from the fall of the prostitute is directly related to the fall of the prostitute (see last month’s Scrip). Rather than lay out the details of the vision of the New Jerusalem in 21:2, John simply notes the fact of New Jerusalem’s establishment chronologically, then notes a few more things that were spoken at that time (21:3-8) and THEN the apostle goes into great detail on the New Jerusalem itself. Thus, John saw the details of 21:9-22:5 at 21:2. There are not two comings of the New Jerusalem but one.
There are theological ramifications to these seemingly trivial technical points, but I’ll leave those for you all to chew on. If you really care about them, ask me or email me.
|
|
The Chapel Light - June 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 14 June 2009 |
Let’s talk about a few more interpretive keys to the book of Revelation. (You may want to have a Bible in front of you to follow this article.) The last thing John sees in Revelation 16 is the fall of the city of Babylon. I can imagine that there were all sorts of noise and clouds of dust (recall the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11!) in the vision. As the dust settles, one of the angels who had been pouring the vials of God’s wrath emerges to talk with John. Note the way John’s description is structured (Revelation 17:1-6).
One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me ...
... saying “Come, I will show you ... ”
... the judgment of the great harlot ...
So he carried me away in the Spirit ...
... into the wilderness ...
And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast ...
... and on her forehead a name was written: Mystery, Babylon the Great ...
Now turn to Revelation 21:9ff and notice the similar structure.
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked to me ...
... saying, “Come, I will show you ... ”
... the bride, the Lamb’s wife ...
And he carried me away in the Spirit ...
... to a great and high mountain ...
And he showed me the great city ...
... the holy Jerusalem ...
These similarities are not an accident. They are an invitation to compare and contrast the two situations; the sections are related. Thus, the next large section in the outline of Revelation is 17:1 – 22:5 (at least, or possibly to the very end of the book; the end of the section is a minor consideration), and is a contrast between two women who represent two cities.
Note that in each section John is invited to see a woman, and in both cases that woman is also a city. First, John is taken to a deserted wilderness and sees a raucous prostitute riding a seven-headed, ten-horned beast (to whom we were already introduced in Revelation 13). The woman’s name is Babylon and she is drunk with the blood of martyred followers of Jesus (17:6), i.e. she is a city that loved to put followers of Jesus to death. By contrast, the second woman John views from a high mountain; she is a pure and spotless bride coming down from heaven, and her name is (New) Jerusalem. Filthy prostitute ... pure bride. Mystery Babylon ... NEW Jerusalem. Killer of the followers of Jesus ... Home of the followers of Jesus. We are not supposed to simply observe these things. The very structure invites us to relate the women/cities to one another, to contrast them, to note their relationship to one another.
The angel gives John clues about the identities of the characters in the vision. The seven heads of the beast are seven mountains; they are also seven kings – one which “is” – which means he was ruling during John’s time. The city on seven hills and the king who “is” would seem to identify the beast as Rome, famous in the ancient world as the city on the seven hills, and a Roman emperor ruled during John’s time. But if the beast is Rome, who is the woman that sits on the beast, i.e. that is supported by Rome? Again, John is given a clue: she is a city that, with Rome, persecutes Christian believers, and she is eventually the victim of the beast herself. Thus, she is a city that is eventually destroyed by Rome. So what city might that be?
Going further, this prostitute is contrasted (replaced) by a pure and faithful bride – the NEW Jerusalem. If the bride replaces the prostitute (as the explicit contrast encourages), and the bride is the NEW Jerusalem (cf. 21:2) – then who might the unfaithful prostitute Babylon be? (Hint: see Revelation 11:8 where she is called by the names of other wicked and unfaithful cities, and 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter uses an interesting code name to speak of the city from which he is writing).
John is given some clues about the identity of the New Jerusalem. She is the bride of Christ (21:9). Her foundation is the apostles (21:14). She is a Jerusalem without a temple, that doesn’t need a temple, because God and the Lamb dwell within her (21:22). So who is this New Jerusalem who is the bride of Christ?
So what conclusions might we draw about these two women, these two cities? Why are they depicted as they are? What is the theological message being sent by the vision to John to give to the persecuted churches of his day?
Finally, did you notice that John introduces the New Jerusalem twice (21:9 and 21:1-2)? Why is that? We’ll talk about that unusual little twist in next month’s Scrip ...
|
|
The Chapel Light - April/May 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 20 April 2009 |
Let’s talk about a few more interpretive keys to the book of Revelation. (You may want to have a Bible in front of you to follow this article.) One of the first things that readers of Revelation observe is the prominence of groups of seven: seven seals on the scroll that are opened, seven trumpets that are blown, seven bowls of the final wrath of God that seven angels pour out. These groups of seven comprise the bulk of the book. Many interpreters spend a lot of time on the details of the individual items but it seems to me more important to consider the seventh item in each group because that item is the culmination, the point to which the first six is leading.
The first set of sevens is the seals on the scroll. The seventh seal we expect to bring us to a culmination; we expect to be able to read the message of the scroll. Instead we get a half hour of silence during which seven angels with trumpets prepare to blow (8:1-6). Contrary to our expectations, the seventh scroll leads not to a culmination, but instead introduces the seven trumpets. The seven trumpets do, however, culminate in the kingdoms of the world becoming God’s kingdom – the time of the judging of the nations of the world, the rewarding of the faithful, and the commencement of the reign of God (11:15-19) – the end, the goal, as it were. The first two sets of seven, then, are really one set, and they all lead us to the announcement of God’s rule over the nations of the world.
The third set of seven consists of seven bowls containing “the last plagues,” last because “in them the wrath of God is complete” (15:1). These horrible plagues lead to an invasion of the Holy Land (sixth bowl – 16:12-16) and culminate with the fall of a great city named “Babylon” (whatever that is).
These culminations become the focal points of the book. The scroll which no one could read introduces seven trumpets which point to the establishment of the reign of Christ. The seven bowls point to the fall of Babylon (which is spelled out in greater detail in Revelation 17 and 18 – but we’ll save those chapters for another day). The establishment of Christ’s kingdom and the fall of Babylon are the ends and therefore the chief concerns of the visions.
What are the connections between the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls? I’ve already noted the connections between the seals and the trumpets; they are closely related, flowing into one another almost without pause. But the bowls seem to be disconnected, part of an entirely new portion of the vision. There seems to be a dividing line after the culmination of the seventh trumpet, the establishment of God’s rule. A new series of visions is begun built around three “signs in heaven.” The first sign is a pregnant woman in heaven giving birth to a son (12:1). The second sign is a great red dragon in heaven that tries to eat the newborn son but fails to do so (12:3). And the third sign in heaven (after a good deal of intervening action) is the pouring out of the seven final bowls of wrath (15:1). But the “sign in heaven” theme indicates the connection of these three things, and therefore signals that the section is a connected whole.
These simple observations help us understand the basic structure of the book and the visions, and when you understand the structure, you can set up the beginnings of an outline. Outlines help us group information properly, enabling us to see the forest so we don’t get lost in the trees. The basic outline of the book based, on the observations noted above look like this:
The Road to God’s Rule of the Nations of the World (4:1 – 11:19)
The Road to the Destruction of Babylon (12:1 – 16:21)
When I interpret the book of Revelation, I work within this framework. I try to see the message of 4:1-11:19 as a section, and then I try to see the message of 12:1-16:21 as a section. There may be relationships between these two big sections, but you can’t really establish them until you understand each section on its own. If you are really serious about understanding the book of Revelation, I’d suggest reading it in terms of these sections. Read 4:1 – 11:19, and then put your Bible down. The next day read 12:1 – 16:21. Read, read, read – and acquaint yourself with the details and flow of each section.
|
|
The Chapel Light - March 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 08 March 2009 |
Somewhat to my surprise I’ve received very positive response about the sermons and articles on the book of Revelation. Along those lines I have a few more interpretive keys to the book of Revelation to offer for your consideration.
The vision itself begins in Revelation 4. The setting is the throne room of God, and the action centers on a scroll written on both sides that no one is worthy to open. And then the Lion who is a slain Lamb comes forward. He alone is worthy to open the seals on the scroll. Now, a scroll full of writing that is sealed with seven seals and which no one can open or read or look at, but which everyone wants to see opened and read and looked at, is an intriguing thing, isn’t it? In that sense the scroll – or should I say “the contents of the scroll—” becomes the main character. We all want to know what the scroll says -- so the key is getting the whole thing opened so we can read it!
Students of prophecy spend a lot of time trying to figure out the images that flash up on the screen each time Christ opens one of the seals on the scroll. But are the images that are seen – the four horsemen, the martyrs under the altar, and great earthquake and falling stars – really expressing the contents of the scroll? Or are they representing things preparatory to the real message of the scroll, things that must take place before the message of the scroll can be read? I’m inclined to believe the latter.
As the scroll is almost open, six of the seven seals having been undone, there is a great pause as John sees the sights of Revelation 7 – four angels holding back winds of judgment until the servants of God are sealed, and then a great innumerable crowd from every tribe and nation and language who are going to “come out of the great tribulation” and live peacefully and joyfully in God’s temple. Why is John shown these sights while the scroll hangs almost completely open – just prior to the message of the scroll being FINALLY revealed? It seems as though the vision of Revelation 7 is also preparatory – things that must be put in place, revealed for some reason, before the message of the scroll can actually be read.
In Revelation 8:1 the last seal is broken, and we expect now to be able to read the message on the scroll. Instead, after all the noise and hubbub that we’ve seen in chapters 6 and 7, there is suddenly silence. John says it lasts for half an hour. Try a half hour of total silence some time, especially after there’s been all sorts of noise and commotion. It’s quite a pregnant pause. We are all holding our breath waiting to hear what the scroll that couldn’t be read has to say.
But instead of the contents of the scroll, seven angels take their turns blowing trumpets, and we get to see more commotion – hail and fire and blood falling to earth and killing the vegetation, a great mountain falling into the sea and poisoning the water, a great star falling into the fresh waters and poisoning them, the lights of the sky are struck and dimmed, an army of locusts emerges from the pit and wild demonic horses are turned loose across the Euphrates River. Six of the seven trumpets blow – and we’re waiting for that last one, just like we waited for the last seal of the scroll to be broken.
And then we are introduced to Revelation 10. It’s an odd chapter; commentators often seem unsure what to do with it. In it, a large angel with a little book (or scroll) in his hand comes down to John. The only other detail that we’re given about this little scroll is that it’s OPEN. And John is commanded to eat it (just as the prophet Ezekiel had eaten a scroll that was written on both sides, full of judgment). He does so, and then is told “that he must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings.”
What is this little scroll, or as the KJV puts it, “the little book”?
I want to suggest that we consider what the vision has been building toward up to this point. It has been a vision about a sealed scroll that we all wanted to read. The opening of the scroll is stretched out dramatically. When the scroll is opened there is a very pregnant pause of silence. As the action moves forward and is moving toward completion, a large angel gives John an OPEN scroll to eat – and then commands him to prophesy.
Why introduce this little scroll out of nowhere? Isn’t it more likely to find its meaning in the previously established context?
What might the relationship be between the scroll of seven seals and the little scroll that John eats?
And might there be some connection between all of this and the statement in the introductory verses of Revelation 1:1 which says that the risen Christ sent the Revelation to John “and signified it by His angel to His servant John.”
It’s just a thought … Chew on it; if it makes sense and you find it helpful, swallow it. If not, just spit it out.
|
|
Book Review of "The Shack" |
|
|
Articles
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 |
Over the past few months a number of people have asked me about William P. Young’s book “The Shack”. The title didn’t whet my appetite, so I never bothered reading it. Recently a friend put it in my hands and asked me to read and express my opinion on it. There are some GREAT things about “The Shack” – and that’s why it was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list – but there are also some inadequacies
“The Shack” is presenting theological ideas through the story of Mack Philips. The story is so well told that it’s easy to forget that you’re reading theology. I have no critique of the story itself – it kept me interested and turning pages – and I don’t want to give out too many details lest I spoil the book. So let’s touch on the theology presented.
The reviews that I’ve read of “The Shack” all remark about the “fresh take” on Christian theology that it presents. I found the work refreshing, but not a particularly fresh take. There is nothing new here – just a teasing out in narrative form of several traditional orthodox doctrines -- of God as Trinity, God as love, God as the ground of all being, the existence of evil in the presence of a good God, and the importance of relationship with God over dead formal religious ritual. This is what evangelicals have always believed and taught – at least I certainly have -- although if so many people are finding this approach “fresh”, perhaps we haven’t been teaching it as well or as effectively as we could have. The scene where Mackenzie is called upon to sit in God’s seat and have to play “judge” I found to be very effective in explaining the heart of Christ. And on the whole, I found Young’s narrative approach very refreshing and I would expect that any true believer in Christ will come away with a better perspective on and desiring a closer relationship with a truly compassionate loving Father.
Just remember that you’re reading FICTION. Take some of the initial discomforts that you feel in stride and keep reading. You’ll be blessed in the end.
The overall theological perspective I found not untrue to the Bible, but I do note a number of inadequacies. Most of the inadequacies are not about what Young powerfully asserts about God’s goodness, but about what he subtly implies or about what he leaves out or seems to sidestep altogether. In that regard I don’t want to make strong accusations or condemnations; it may be that in speaking to our world Young focused heavily on some things that the world can receive and let some troublesome things that the world has trouble swallowing go unsaid. We shouldn’t assert what he believes from his silence or the vague aspects of his presentation. Below are a few examples of what I mean.
Mack brings up in one conversation with God the Father the fact that the God of the Bible is a God of wrath, the God who casts people into the lake of fire. God responds: “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” It is important to note both what is said and what is not said. First, everything in God’s response is TRUE. Mackenzie sees God as primarily a wrathful being lacking love, and this is certainly NOT how the God of the Bible presents Himself (Exodus 34:6-7) – so God is NOT who Mackenzie (or many of us) think He is. We have gotten Him somewhat out of context, like the child who only remembers his spankings and forgets all of the meals provided, the goodnight kisses, and the Christmas gifts received. Likewise, God doesn’t NEED to punish people for their sin – first because sin is its own punishment, and second (not stated in this passage but definitely made clear elsewhere) because Christ bore that punishment already. And finally according to John 3:17 God’s PURPOSE isn’t to condemn the world, but to save it – to “cure it”. So everything that is said is true, and the true things expressed are so often overlooked and misunderstood that the author’s tactic is to focus on those neglected truths. In this response, however, God never really answers Mackenzie’s question, does He? He never explains the place of His wrath or the reality of the lake of fire. Of course, neither does God DENY any of those things in the passage. He simply implies that Mackenzie has gotten the picture wrong and tries to correct Mackenzie’s focus on the MAIN truths about God. That doesn’t need to be taken to mean that our author denies God’s wrath or the reality of eternal hell. My gut feeling is that William P. Young wouldn’t deny those truths; He would simply say that you need to understand those things about God in light of the “good things” about God, and it’s the “good news” that needs to be presented. If that’s what Young is saying, then I agree with him; if he’s going further and by his silence denying the reality of God’s wrath or the existence of eternal hell, then I think he’s strayed from the Scriptures and a long history of Christian theology.
A second theological issue comes up in a conversation between Mackenzie and Jesus. In speaking about those who love God, Jesus says that it has nothing to do with being a Christian. He goes on:
”Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.”
“Does that mean,” asked Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?”
“Not at all,” smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”
Once again, it is crucial to note what is being said and what is not being said. When you first read the paragraph about all of the different groups “loving God”, it is very easy to quickly conclude that William Young is propounding that all roads lead to God. But Young has Jesus expressly deny this notion. So when Young has Jesus say “I have no desire to make [people from other religions] Christian”, he is NOT saying that salvation is not in Christ alone. He is using “Christian” here, not to mean “truly Christian – a true believer in Christ”, but someone who follows some form of Christianity for the sake of merely following the form. Young’s point is that many people love God or the things of God (goodness). Jesus is saying in the terms used here: “I don’t want to turn them into people who follow a form of religion, but I want to see them transformed into true children of God, into TRUE Christians.” By saying that he wants to see them transformed, Young is acknowledging that the other religions – along with empty and merely formal Christianity – are not enough to be right with God. One must experience a personal relationship with God through Christ. Again, instead of focusing on negative concepts, Young puts the focus on positives, including the image of Christ, the shepherd who goes to all lengths to seek the lost, and he lets the negatives off to the side. We are unaccustomed to this, especially if we come from a fundamentalist Christian background where the focus almost always seems to be on the negative aspects of our faith.
A third issue is the chapter entitled “A Festival of Friends”. For as much as I liked most of the book, I found this chapter quite odd. I think that the writer is simply trying to bring closure to the theme of the conflict between Mackenzie and the abusive father of his childhood, but Young uses weird imagery to do it. If we take him to be trying to teach theology here, Young certainly seems to be suggesting that people have a second chance at salvation after death. If that’s the case, Young is entertaining wishful rather than biblical thinking. I choose, however, to give the author the benefit of the doubt; I don’t think he’s trying to make that theological point so much as he is trying to illustrate the importance of forgiveness and the disruption that sin creates not only in one life, but in the lives of all around it.
The only real place where I had serious problems with Young was in his treatment of Jesus’ view of organized religion. Throwing a bone to our anti-religious society, Young depicts his main character, Mackenzie Philips, disillusioned with organized religion both before and after his experience with God. A little more disturbing to me, the author paints Jesus the same way.
[Mack]: “I really do want to understand. I mean, I find the way you are so different from all the well-intentioned religious stuff I’m familiar with.”
“As well-intentioned as it might be, you know religious machinery can chew up people!” Jesus said with a bite of his own. “An awful lot of what is done in my name has nothing to do with me and is often, even if unintentional, very contrary to my purposes.”
“You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?” Mack said, not sure if he was asking a question or making an observation.
“I don’t create institutions – never have, never will.”
“What about the institution of marriage?”
“Marriage is not an institution. It’s a relationship.” Jesus paused, his voice steady and patient. “Like I said, I don’t create institutions; that’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion,” Jesus said a little sarcastically, “and not very fond of politics or economics either.” Jesus’ visage darkened noticeably. “And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”
Mack hesitated. He wasn’t sure what to say. This all felt a little over his head. Noticing that Mack’s eyes were glazing over, Jesus downshifted. “Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to create some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false. Systems cannot provide you security, only I can…I don’t have an agenda here, Mack. Just the opposite,” Jesus interjected. “I came to give you Life to the fullest. My life…The simplicity and purity of enjoying a growing friendship?”
For me, these few paragraphs were full of the tired clichés of disappointed utopians. The author does a phenomenal job in the rest of the book presenting the importance of relationship with God in the ordinary everyday circumstances of life. Then he goes on a tirade here belittling some of the things that make up the normal circumstances of life – organized religion, politics, business. Can we really escape these things? Can we live apart from them? Young seems to be inferring that you need to foster relationship with God APART from these terrors – an almost monastic view of spiritual life. I would propose that it is more accurate and more biblical to say that a relationship with God must be fostered in the context of all of these things which are a part of the real fallen world. That is what a walk with God by faith is.
If it is true that God is not too big on religion, the Old Testament is pretty hard to explain, as it’s built on a religious system given to the people by God through Moses. And if we’re talking about organized churches, Jesus’ apostles established them at His command – full of fallen people living in fallen situations, yes – but his bride nonetheless, working out her sanctification in a fallen world. If there had been no churches full of fallen people, we wouldn’t have much of a New Testament, would we?
Likewise, if God isn’t big on politics, why did He ordain it??? Why did He reveal Himself as the one who raises up and takes down kings? Why does He refer to them as “his ministers” in Romans 13? Why are His followers told to obey them? God is certainly VERY involved with politics all throughout the Scriptures.
And finally, why is economics such a terroristic boogeyman? Many of the laws given to the Israelites have to do with proper execution of economic realities. Experiments in avoiding the seemingly harsh realities of economics usually end up in ruins.
These things can be used as tools to prop up our security and sense of control, but that is not what they are. All I could think of as I read this section was John Lennon’s song “Imagine”…and I sighed. Oh well, even William P. Young is only human. History has taught us that utopians often end up being the most brutal people in the world, and some young naïf could easily misunderstand Young in an idealistic utopian manner and go quite astray. Young seems to believe: “If we were all in a perfect relationship with God and each other everything would be all right.” Well, yes, of course – but that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Perfection is not attainable; that’s why we need grace and God’s constant forgiveness, isn’t it? Even those who know God and believe ever so firmly in Jesus Christ cannot completely escape sin in this world. It simply can’t be done. The answer is not to condemn and avoid politics and economics and religion as man-made terrors, going out of church grumbling about the imperfection of religious people and failure to find perfect relationship, but to join with our fallen neighbors, encouraging each other to live godly in this world, fleshing out my relationship with God in my imperfect church, my imperfect nation, my imperfect world, constantly applying truth to situations moral and political and economic and religious.
Those are my major complaints with Young’s book. I think if we adjust our reading accordingly, Young’s powerful portrayal of the workings of the Trinity, his explanation of how to view God and the presence of evil, and the importance of right relationship to God through Christ can be a very powerful voice that people in our pluralistic society will have no trouble understanding, and with those qualifications, I would recommend William P. Young’s “The Shack” as very insightful and mind-stretching reading.
|
|
