Being Filled

The End of This Blog—the Beginning of a New One

2015-11-30T14:25:00.000-05:00

“Do not think that I have come to abolish Being Filled; I have not come to abolish this blog, but to fulfill it. For verily I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, neither a jot nor tittle will by any means disappear from Being Filled until everything is accomplished.”

I’ve had a great time blogging at Being Filled, but it’s time to move on. For one thing, the name and logo for this blog have always caused undue confusion. But more importantly, some of my most fundamental convictions have shifted since I began this blog. I no longer agree with much of what I’ve previously written.

At the same time, I don’t want to simply remove that content, as if I never believed it. So for now, this blog will remain as it is, and a new blog will begin. I may, over time, transfer some of the content from this blog (the stuff I do still agree with) to the new blog. The rest will stay here.

So if you want to continue following my blogging journey, update your subscriptions to my new blog, Hippie Heretic. And check out my inaugural post, explaining why I chose that name.

Locating Atonement (Book Review) & Ben Myer’s Patristic Atonement Model

2015-11-28T15:20:00.000-05:00

There’s been a lot of recent discussion on the nature of Jesus’ atonement. All Christians universally affirm that Jesus’ death on the cross saved us from sin. But we debate exactly how his death brought about that salvation.

Western Christianity has long been dominated by penal views of the atonement, namely Calvin’s theory of penal substitutionary atonement. According to this view, God’s holiness demands that sin be punished; Christ bore that punishment in our place; God’s wrath was thus satisfied; and we can thus receive forgiveness. But this view is starting to lose its dominance. For reasons that I won’t get into now, I count myself among those who believe that it offers a distorted picture of God and that it undermines the nature of forgiveness.

Other views—such as recapitulation, ransom, Christus victor, moral influence, mimetic theory, and many others—are becoming more prominent. And so the debate rages. Those with opposing views lock themselves into their respective camps, and little progress is made.

But this book is not like the many others, seeking to push certain views in opposition to the rest. Locating Atonement: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (which is based on the proceedings of the 2015 Los Angeles Theology Conference) mostly avoids the debate of one theory vs. another. Instead, it asks how the doctrine of atonement relates to other key theological concepts. So the atonement is discussed in relation to doctrines like trinity, creation, and ascension.

Contributors hold widely diverging views of the atonement themselves, and this comes across in their writing, more with some than others. But for the most part, the essays should be helpful for all views, even if some modifications may be needed. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of wisdom and atonement by Kyle Strobel and Adam J. Johnson, as well as the discussion of covenant and atonement by Jeremy R. Treat.

But one essay stood out above all the others. In fact, it was this essay that made me want to read the book in the first place. In some ways, it doesn’t even fit with the theme of the book as a whole, as it does promote one specific model of the atonement. But let’s be honest, Benjamin Myers’ essay on the patristic atonement model stole the show. Who cares that it deviates from the book’s focus? This sorely needed essay makes the whole thing worth the price of admission.

Myers’ essay brings new life to the recapitulation view of Irenaeus and Athanasius, along with a more-clearly articulated understanding of Christus victor. What Myers so skillfully does is elucidate the understanding of the atonement held by the very earliest church fathers (which has been consistently maintained by the Eastern Orthodox tradition, but has been all but forgotten in Western Christianity). And he does so in a way that makes it applicable for believers today. This is exactly what we’ve needed.

Here’s a little excerpt:

Human beings are the products of love. They are created in God’s image for the purpose of reciprocating divine love. Human nature, motivated by an internal principle of desire, tends naturally upward toward God. Since God is the source of all life, to be lovingly moving toward God is to be alive. But to turn away from God, even for one second, is to begin to die: to slide downward, away from life, love, and reality.

Since the beginning of history, the whole human race has been locked in a downward slide toward nothingness. But because of his great love for humanity, the Son of God leapt down from heaven and wrapped himself in our plummeting human nature. Because he was human, he participated fully in our perilous slide toward nothingness. But because he was divine, he was able to arrest our downward movement and to reverse it, initiating an upward movement toward the life, love, and reality of God. In the movement of that one human life, the life of Christ, the whole of human nature has undergone death and resurrection. (page 86)

I love almost everything about Myers’ essay. There’s just one clarification I’d like to bring up. He talks a lot about the impassibility of God. But it seems that impassibility means different things to different people. To many, impassibility means that God does not have emotions—he cannot suffer with us in any real sense. This is the definition of impassibility I have heard most often, and I absolutely reject it. Our God is a personal God with very real emotions, and he always suffers with us. However, it seems that Myers is using the concept of impassibility in a more specific sense to mean that God cannot suffer death; therefore, God had to assume a mortal human body first. On this we agree, and if that’s all he means by impassibility, then I don’t have a problem with it.

He delivered his essay at the conference, and they’ve graciously made the video of it available online (other videos available as well). So check it out!

But be sure to pick up the book for all the full details and citations. It also includes many essays for which no video is available online (such as the ones on wisdom and covenant that I enjoyed).

Locating Atonement is available as a paperback or a Kindle eBook.

Disclosure: the publisher, Zondervan, sent me a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.

The Jesus-Centered Bible (Book Review)

2015-11-15T21:32:00.000-05:00

My wife and I were recently given the opportunity to review the Jesus-Centered Bible. Be sure to check out her review as well. We’d like to thank Group Publishing for sending us our review copies.

Initial thoughts

Physically, this Bible is beautiful. It feels great in my hands. It lays open pretty well. And it comes with that amazing new-Bible smell. The layout and typesetting are classy. I like the blue-themed Old Testament and red-themed New Testament.

That brings me to the big feature that is unique to this Bible. We’re accustomed to seeing Jesus’ words in red letters. But Rick Lawrence and Ken Castor have taken this concept a step further, applying blue letters to various Old Testament references to Jesus. Cool idea. However, they admit from the outset that the blue-letter references are not intended to be exhaustive. They chose about 700 prominent texts to highlight. Each blue-letter selection comes with a sidebar explaining how the text points to Jesus. I’ll come back to these.

The Bible text itself is the New Living Translation. It’s not my favorite, but it’s not too bad as far as paraphrases go. I won’t focus this review on the NLT or its features, but I will say that I’d love to see an NRSV edition of the Jesus-Centered Bible come out.

The introductory note by Rick Lawrence was a bit off-putting. For some reason, he assumes that readers will have never heard of C.H. Spurgeon and that we won’t understand the word beeline. Potential insults to our intelligence aside, I find it disconcerting that he points to Spurgeon as a model for Jesus-centered interpretation.

It’s certainly true that Spurgeon claimed to find Jesus in every passage, but his results were far from satisfactory. He was a raging Calvinist and a firm believer in the idea that God tortures unbelievers for all of eternity. Such a God looks nothing whatsoever like Jesus. And so, when Spurgeon “found Jesus” in the Old Testament, it usually meant that he found a way to force Calvinism or penal substitutionary atonement into the text. Either that or he would invent absurdities, such as claiming that the sexual innuendos of Solomon’s Song actually refer to Christ and the church. Yikes!

Don’t misunderstand me. I absolutely believe that Jesus is to be found in the Old Testament. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that we cannot correctly understand the Old Testament without a Jesus-centered interpretation. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Charles Spurgeon is the perfect example of the wrong way. That said, many of the contributors to this Bible—such as Tony Campolo, Bruxy Cavey, William Paul Young, and Brian Zahnd—are excellent examples of the right way. So we’ll see which model is actually followed in the notes throughout.

Content

It’s worth noting that this is called the Jesus-Centered Bible, not the Jesus-Centered Study Bible. The notes are largely devotional in nature. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to be aware of. They shy away from answering many of the really hard questions about the Old Testament that a Jesus-centered interpretation forces us to ask.

Bruxy Cavey’s introduction to Leviticus is fantastic! He clearly shows that God never wanted a system of sacrifice—the Israelites just borrowed that idea from the surrounding pagan nations. However, the notes sometimes contradict his introduction, such as the “Reframing Jesus” note on Leviticus 5:10, which suggests that the sacrifices actually did make people right with God.

I really enjoyed the note on 2 Samuel 12. I’ll just quote a section of that here.

From the very beginning of the Bible all the way to the end, the story of God is about God’s relentless pursuit of his creation. God’s dream for this world is to see it redeemed from brokenness and restored to wholeness. In short, God wants to make all things new again. You. Me. All creation. Every inch of it. God wants to redeem it, restore it, and make it whole and free once again. This is God’s dream. This is God’s relentless pursuit: to destroy evil and hate, to bring love and peace. This pursuit has a name. His name is Jesus.

I also appreciated the note on Psalm 22. Commenters on Matthew 27:46 frequently assert that God somehow abandoned Jesus on the cross. But this could not be further from the truth. Jesus simply quoted the opening line of Psalm 22, pointing toward his fulfillment of the entire psalm. The psalm ends by making it clear that God never really did abandon David. And God never abandoned Jesus either. The note on Psalm 22 makes all this clear.

I was happy to see that Kelley Nikondeha’s introduction to Song of Songs downplays the idea of using it as an allegory for the relationship between God and the church. And the notes throughout thankfully avoid Spurgeonesque pitfalls.

I was much less happy with the note on Isaiah 61:1–2. The blue text went all the way to the end of verse 2, even though Jesus, when quoting it, deliberately excised the final phrase, “and with it, the day of God’s anger against their enemies.” The note says that Jesus used these words to identify himself as the Messiah, and that he declared their fulfillment. But without noting that Jesus cut out the part about vengeance, this fulfillment would look entirely different than how Jesus actually fulfilled it.

Some New Testament highlights include Bruxy Cavey’s introduction to Romans, William Paul Young’s introductions to Hebrews and 1 John, and Brian Zahnd’s introduction to Revelation.

Conclusion

The notes and intros I’ve summarized above should provide an idea of the mixed bag they offer. There’s some really great stuff in here, but it’s inconsistent. Perhaps that’s the result of so many different voices weighing in. And perhaps that’s not even a bad thing. After all, that mirrors the Bible itself, with its multivocal approach to understanding God. Some of the biblical authors get closer to the truth than others, but the ultimate Truth is only found in Jesus. The same can be said for all of the contributors to the Jesus-Centered Bible.

All-in-all, the Jesus-Centered Bible is not perfect, but it’s a huge step in the right direction. I thoroughly commend the effort, and I hope that a later edition will make it even better.

But don’t just take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Pick up your own copy of the Jesus-Centered Bible as a hardcover or in turquoise or charcoal imitation leather.

The Image of God and a New Proposal for Resolving Old Testament Violence

2015-11-01T20:31:00.000-05:00

The violence problem

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the problem of violence in the Old Testament. If you’re unfamiliar with this topic, here’s a basic summary of the problem:

Jesus reveals God as completely nonviolent.
The Old Testament frequently shows God engaging in and commanding violence.

If you disagree with the first point, the second won’t pose as much of a problem for you. But for the sake of this post, I’m taking the first point as granted, and I have no intention of debating it here.

Many other proposals for resolving this problem have already been made, and I don’t intend to discuss them at the moment. But suffice it to say that I currently find the proposals of folks like Derek Flood, Brad Jersak, Brian Zahnd, and Pete Enns to be most convincing, and I’m eagerly awaiting the release of Greg Boyd’s book on the subject.

My own proposal should not in any way negate the ones I’ve listed above. If it carries any weight, I think it should complement them nicely by providing yet another angle from which to look at the issue. Furthermore, I’m not posting my proposal in an attempt to convince others. Rather, I’m hoping to get feedback from those who have been thinking through these same issues.

If you agree with my first point listed above, I’d like to hear what you think of this solution to the second point. Does it have any merit? Is it entirely flawed? How can it be improved? Has anyone else made this proposal that I’m unaware of?

(And if you disagree with the first point, this post is not intended for you. Sorry.)

The image of God

So how does the image of God relate to the problem of violence? We first need to understand what the image of God signifies. There are many ideas about the image of God, and some of them seem more likely than others, but most of them are simply speculations. That’s because the Bible in itself nowhere offers a definition for the image of God.

However, studies in the context of the ancient Near East are changing this. We’re learning that the creation accounts in Genesis were not written in a void. They were actually written as responses to the creation accounts given by surrounding nations. Genesis takes these other creation stories and subverts them, pointing to the God of Israel as sole Creator.

The image of God is one such concept that was taken directly from ancient Near Eastern mythology. According to the surrounding nations, the reigning king bore the image of god. This meant that he, and he alone, ruled as his god’s representative on earth. When he spoke, he spoke on his god’s authority as if his god had spoken himself.

But Genesis subverts this. Genesis shows that all humans, male and female alike, are made in God’s image. Humanity as a whole bears the image of God, and humans were intended to rule as God’s representatives on earth. Once we understand this, we can easily see the connection right there in Genesis:

And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image and according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him, male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven, and over every animal that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26–28, LEB)

See how the image of God is directly tied to the concept of ruling? As God’s image bearers, we were created to rule the earth as his representatives and with his authority.

Before humankind fell into sin, we were perfect image bearers. But when we fell, God did not take away our image-bearing status. We became imperfect image bearers, but we still bear God’s image, rule as his representatives, and speak with the authority he gave us.

Who gave the command?

With this understanding of the image of God in place, we are now ready to look at the problem of Old Testament violence—particularly the violence that God apparently commanded.

Because humans bear the image of God, we speak with the authority of God. And so, when men commit atrocities in the name of God, there is a sense in which their claims are accurate. Did God personally give the command to commit violence? Well, no. But God did give the authority to speak on his behalf. Humankind has abused this authority and spoken things on God’s behalf that he would have never spoken himself. But the problem of authority as coming from God still remains.

Perhaps a different biblical example may help explain this conundrum.

In the book of Esther, King Ahasuerus gave his signet ring to Haman. This ring gave Haman the right to act on the authority of the king. The decree Haman issued “was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and was sealed with the king’s ring” (Esther 3:12, LEB), which means that it was as good as if the king has decreed it himself. The king later came to regret this decision, but because Haman had acted on his authority, the king’s hands were tied, and he could not reverse the decree. But once the decree had been completed, the king took the signet ring back from Haman and gave it to Mordecai instead.

The image of God is in many ways like God’s signet ring. It was intended to give us the authority to speak in God’s name and act with his authority. However, unlike a ring—which can be taken away as easily as it is given—the image of God describes our created state. God cannot simply remove this authority from us without undoing our created nature. Despite our flaws, we still bear the image of God and speak with his authority. And if this is true for all of humanity, how much more must it be the case for the people who were called by Yahweh’s name (Deuteronomy 28:10).

So, for example, when Moses told the Israelites that God commanded them to utterly destroy the surrounding nations—unless they accepted terms of peace, in which case they were to be taken as forced labor and sex slaves—did God really give such commands (Deuteronomy 20:10–21:14)?

In the strictest sense, no, the God who is love would never issue such a command. Given what we now know about God as revealed in Jesus, such a suggestion is blasphemous, and we must denounce it as absolute antichrist. God did not give these commands. Period.

However, it is also true that these commands were given according to the authority Yahweh bestowed on humanity and especially on Israel. So in a sense, they did come from God. Humans, though fallen, still bear God’s image—we are his tainted signet ring of authority. Thus the travesties we commit in his name do, in a very real sense, proceed from him, even though he would never issue such commands himself.

I can’t imagine how much this must grieve him.

But then there’s the good news. The gospel changes all of this! Jesus, as God incarnate, is the perfect image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). He succeeded where Adam failed, bearing God’s image without corruption. He shows us what God is truly like, and he speaks with the authority that is both his by nature and his as image bearer.

When the perfect image of God in Jesus contradicts the broken image of God in Moses or anyone else, there’s no question as to which image we accept. And best of all, our own broken image is now being conformed back into his perfect image (2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10).

My Biggest Problem with Homosexuality

2015-10-08T22:11:00.000-04:00

My friend Keith Giles recently posted an article discussing homosexuality in the Bible. And I’ve previously shared a few thoughts on the subject myself.

But there’s one major issue that just keeps nagging at me—one problem I can’t seem to get around.

My biggest problem with homosexuality is love.

Let me explain. Jesus and the Apostles emphasized over and over again that love is the basis for everything, including every command God has given.

We sometimes get the impression that God arbitrarily prohibits things that offend him. But this could not be further than the truth! God always acts out of love, and his prohibitions always stem from love.

So my problem is that I can’t figure out how a committed monogamous homosexual relationship could be unloving. I can’t understand how such a relationship would cause harm to self or other.

Rape. Incest. Prostitution. Adultery. Philandering. It’s easy to see the harm caused by these sexual sins—whether they are committed heterosexually or homosexually. It’s even easy to see the harm caused by demonizing homosexuality. But I can’t think of any harm caused by committed monogamous homosexual relationships.

I can’t see how such a relationship goes against love of God or love of neighbor. To put it another way, I can’t see how it violates the Golden Rule—“treat others as you would want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12, NET). And since the Golden Rule “fulfills the law and the prophets,” there can be no prohibitions that are not based on it.

So here’s the ultimatum given to us by Jesus and the Apostles. Either homosexuality does violate the Golden Rule (and we just haven’t been able to figure out why), or homosexuality is not a sin.

What do you think?

My Top 10 Scriptural Selections

2015-10-04T23:14:00.000-04:00

Brad Jersak recently wrote about the biblical passages that are most prominent to him, and he challenged readers to make their own lists. His assignment was to pick just ten verses, but he found that he simply couldn’t do that, so he expanded on the original request.

I’m going to take up his challenge, but like Brad, I’m going to have to expand even further on the original request. Kind of. Actually, I’m going to end up with a mixed bag. Some of my prominent biblical selections will be verses that stand well on their own, others will be narratives that cannot be reduced to a verse, and others yet will be broader themes spanning multiple passages so that I cannot pick only one.

God is love

This is both a verse (two of them, actually) and a passage. I could really include the whole first letter of John in my list, but I’ll condense it for now to 1 John 4:7–21.

We see here that love is not simply one of God’s attributes—as if we need to balance out his love with his wrath, justice, holiness, etc. No, love fully and completely defines God. All those other attributes must be understood as aspects of his love, for he is love.

We also see how God’s love is incompatible with fear. Fear means we’re still afraid of punishment, but God’s love means that we don’t have to worry about that. He is and always has been for us, not against us. Whatever punishment we might experience is simply his love in action, working to save us.

And finally, we see how God’s love compels us to love one another.

Christ died for all

Did I say I was done with 1 John? My bad. I can’t leave this book without going back to 1 John 2:2. Jesus’ sacrifice is for everyone. He took the sins of the entire world down to the grave with him, and though God raised him back to life, sin and its power remains dead. And because of Jesus’ resurrection, all will be made alive through him (1 Corinthians 15:22). This is one of those themes that covers many passages throughout the New Testament, but I’ll leave it at this for now.

God looks like Jesus

For this theme, I’ll point primarily to Hebrews 1:1–3, John 1:17–18, and Colossians 1:15–17, though there are plenty more passages like them. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. He alone is the Word of God who perfectly shows us the Father. If we want to know what God is like, we cannot give equal weight to all of Scripture, for that would yield a thoroughly incoherent picture. We must rather center our understanding of God on Jesus, and then we must filter everything else through him.

The Sermon on the Mount/Plain

These sermons, found in Matthew 5–7 and Luke 6, contain the summation of Jesus’ teachings. That’s not to say that they were not actual speeches Jesus gave—maybe they were, or maybe they weren’t, but that’s not the point. If we want to understand the gospel of the kingdom, these sermons are the place to start.

Jesus makes it explicit that his fulfillment of the Law supersedes and even overrides the Law. He shows us exactly how we are expected to live in his kingdom. And he grounds it all in the very nature of God himself, thus showing us what God is like.

Love fulfills the Law

Jesus said that love of God and love of neighbor form the basis for the entire Law (Matthew 22:37–40). Paul taught that love is the summation of the Law (Galatians 5:13–14) and that one who loves another has fulfilled the Law (Romans 13:8–10). James called love of neighbor “the royal Law” and said that we do well if we simply follow it (James 2:8).

We have no need to follow all the meticulous guidelines of the Torah. Jesus fulfilled, i.e. completed, all of that. We must simply do to others what we would have them do to us, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12).

Mercy and not sacrifice

Two themes run throughout the Old Testament, competing with one another. The first views justice as retribution. Either the offender must pay, or he must make a sacrifice to pay for him. The second theme completely opposes this idea, showing that mercy is what Yahweh has truly wanted all along. Justice comes through forgiveness and restoration, not payment. When Jesus comes on the scene, he fully affirms this second version of justice, thus invalidating all claims to the former.

In addition to Jesus’ two quotations of Hosea 6:6 (in Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7), he gets at this theme in the middle of his Sermon on the Mount when he overturns the Lex Talionis. According to the Law, the “eye for an eye” command included a clause to “show no mercy” (Deuteronomy 19:21). But Jesus explicitly reverses this, commanding his followers not to retaliate against people who wrong them (Matthew 5:38–39).

Jesus also consistently lived this out, as exemplified in the scene we’ll examine next.

Woman caught in adultery

This narrative (John 8:3–11) fits the theme above, but it’s so beautiful that I feel I must include it separately in my list. A woman who had been caught in adultery was brought before Jesus. According to the Law, she had to be stoned to death. There was no option to show her mercy. Yet Jesus did so anyway.

I can’t overstate the fact that what he did was completely illegal and contrary to the Law of Moses. But Jesus didn’t care about the Law; he cared about the person. And he acted in such a creative way as to dispel the accusers, convicting them of their own sins, while forgiving the woman of hers.

Father forgive them

While Jesus was hanging on the cross, he prayed forgiveness for the very people who were killing him (Luke 23:34). Even though they did not ask for forgiveness, Jesus simply gave it. Freely and unreservedly.

And if he offers such incredible forgiveness for this, the worst crime in history, then we can be assured that nothing is beyond his forgiveness. We are fully and completely forgiven! We need only learn to recognize and accept this fact.

This echoes what are perhaps my favorite verses from the Old Testament. “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you, so that you may be revered” (Psalm 130:3–4, NRSV).

God is Father of all

This is another theme we find throughout the New Testament, but for now I’ll point to Acts 17:28–29, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 3:14–15, and Ephesians 4:6. This is so critically important because it helps us understand what God’s disposition is to all people everywhere—he is their Father, and he loves them as any good father would love his children. It also serves to orient our own disposition to others—all people are our brothers and sisters, and we must love them as such.

No doubt many will here object. Certainly, some verses do speak of those who are children of the devil or speak of the special status of believers as children of God. But we can’t use these other verses to deny the biblical theme that all are God’s children. Two different ideas are being pictured here. The former describes ultimate reality. All humans do descend from God—they’re all his children in the most literal sense. For if they are not God’s children, then whose children are they? There is no other creator.

However, some people have rejected God as their Father. They have taken their inheritance early, left their true Father, and made themselves figuratively children of the devil. But what is God’s disposition toward his rebellious children? The parable we’ll examine next answers this question.

The prodigal son

Tradition has named this parable after the son, but it’s really all about the Father. Though his son may turn his back on him, the Father never turns his back on his son. The son may have disinherited himself, but the Father never stopped calling him son. The Father’s only disposition toward his son is one of loving patience, eagerly awaiting his return.

This describes God’s attitude toward every one of his prodigal children. There could never be a son or daughter who so offends God that he would write them off. They may no longer claim him as Father, but he has always considered them his children. And when they learn the error of their ways and come home, God runs to them with open arms. And though the older brother may object to the prodigal’s inclusion, the Father overrules his objections.

* * *

What about you? Which Scriptural themes, passages, or verses are most foundational to your beliefs?

“Stop Focusing on Love, You Hippie!”

2015-08-14T00:58:00.000-04:00

I’ve been accused a lot lately of focusing too much on love, supposedly to the exclusion of other biblical themes like holiness, justice, wrath, etc. Well, I do focus a lot on love. In fact, I base everything on it. And I won’t apologize for that.

Love is the central message of the entire New Testament. Love is the very core of the gospel message itself. Jesus and the Apostles focused on love above all else, and so I will do the same. Those other biblical themes that I supposedly exclude are, in fact, subsets of love. We can’t understand those parts until we get first get love right.

Faith and love are ultimately the only things that matter. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s see what the New Testament has to say.

Jesus’ focus on love

The Gospel of Matthew records that a legal expert from the Pharisees posed a question to Jesus. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Matthew 22:36). Jesus responded.

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37–40)

We see right away that everything in “the law and prophets” (the Old Testament) depends on love. If we don’t have a right understanding of love, we won’t have a right understanding of anything else. This theme is so important that it’s included in all three Synoptic Gospels. The accounts are structured differently, but the punchline in each is the same.

“The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29–31)

Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25–28)

In Luke’s version, the questioning doesn’t end there. The legal expert asked, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke10:29). Jesus responded with a parable, explaining that the lowest of the low, your hated enemy, the one who you believe serves a false god, the one whose name you won’t even pronounce—the Samaritan—this is your neighbor (Luke 10:30–37). These are the kinds of people we must love.

But Jesus doesn’t just tell us to love the neighbors we’d rather hate. He also tells us to love those who actively hate us. We’re even to love the enemies who would harm us. Furthermore, Jesus says that this love of enemies is what defines us as true sons of the Father because this is the kind of love that God shows to everyone.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43–48)

“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you.

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:27–36)

So we’re to love God, and we’re to love people—all people with no exceptions. How we show love to people is pretty straightforward. We do good to them, we bless them, we pray for them, we give to them, and we treat them the way we’d want them to treat us. But how do we show love to God? Jesus explained that too.

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’” (Matthew 25:37–40)

We show love to God by showing love to people. We fulfil the first greatest commandment by obeying the second. The two are one and the same. And so, in John’s Gospel, Jesus leaves out the first commandment altogether.

“I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35)

And Jesus raised the stakes, making it clear that this love may even lead to death.

“Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete. My commandment is this—to love one another just as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this—that one lays down his life for his friends.” (John 15:9–13)

Paul’s focus on love

As we move to the writings of Paul, we can hardly get away from the emphasis on love in his first letter to the Corinthians.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know. But if someone loves God, he is known by God. (1 Corinthians 8:1–3)

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1–13)

Stay alert, stand firm in the faith, show courage, be strong. Everything you do should be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13–14)

In his letter addressed to the Ephesians, Paul ties together the idea of living in love with the idea that we must do so in imitation of God’s love.

Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God. (Ephesians 5:1–2)

Just in case his other words hadn’t been clear enough, in his letter to the Galatians Paul makes it explicit. “The only thing that matters is faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). And he affirms the idea that love is the summation of the law.

For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:13–14)

In his letter to the Romans, Paul again affirms this singular focus on loving others.

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8–10)

And in his first letter to Timothy, Paul summarizes the purpose of their ministry.

But the aim of our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:5–6)

Other Apostles’ focus on love

The anonymous letter to the Hebrews tells us that the whole point of gathering together is “to spur one another on to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24).

James affirms what Jesus and Paul taught about love of neighbor, calling it “the royal law.”

But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. (James 2:8)

And let’s not forget that simple acts of love are at the forefront of James’ definition of religion.

Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27)

Peter affirms the explicit mandate of love above all else.

Above all keep your love for one another fervent, because love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)

And then we come to the letters of John, where the supremacy of love shines through without restraint.

For this is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another. (1 John 3:11)

The one who does not love remains in death. (1 John 3:14)

We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians. (1 John 3:16)

Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth. (1 John 3:18–19)

Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment. And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. (1 John 3:23–24)

As we continue through John’s unrelenting emphasis on love, we reach the focal point of all theology—the reason nothing could ever be more important than love—“God is love!”

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God. The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love. By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Dear friends, if God so loved us, then we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God resides in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:7–12)

And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us. God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him. By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love. We love because he loved us first. (1 John 4:16–19)

Summary of the New Testament’s focus on love

“Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”
“Love never ends.”
“The greatest of these is love.”
“Everything you do should be done in love.”
“The only thing that matters is faith working through love.”
“Love is the fulfillment of the law.”
“The aim of our instruction is love.”
“Above all keep your love for one another fervent.”
“This is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another.”
“Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another.”
“God is love.”
“God is love.”

Want to tell me again to stop focusing on love?

(All Scripture references in this post taken from the NET Bible, bold emphases mine.)

How Should Christians Respond to Violence?

2015-08-12T19:49:00.000-04:00

I was recently asked to write a post for Faithlife regarding a Christian response to violence. Here’s a little excerpt:

Buy a sword . . . but don’t use it

Shortly before his arrest, Jesus told his disciples, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Why did Jesus say this? Was he preparing them to defend themselves? Not quite. Jesus explained, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

The disciples said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords,” to which Jesus responded, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38). Enough for what? Two swords would hardly have provided sufficient defense against “a great crowd with swords and clubs” (Matthew 26:47), but they were enough to fulfil the Scripture. Alternatively, many translations (CEB, CEV, HCSB, ISV, etc.) suggest that Jesus’ response is better rendered, “Enough of that!”—indicating that the disciples had misunderstood his intent.
When an armed band of soldiers came to arrest Jesus, his disciples asked, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” (Luke 22:49). Then Peter, failing to wait for Jesus’ response, drew his sword and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear (John 18:10).

Jesus said, “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51). “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (Matthew 26:52–54). And he healed the servant’s ear.

Be sure to read the rest on the Faithlife Blog.

I Don’t Know Where I Stand, but I Support Gays

2015-06-26T21:41:00.000-04:00

Before you start throwing stones, please read this carefully, and hear me out. What I’m going to say is likely to upset many on both ends of the spectrum, but I want you to at least understand what I’m saying if you’re going to disagree with me.

I don’t know where I stand.

Everywhere I look, I see people who appear to be absolutely certain that they know whether homosexuality is acceptable in God’s sight. I’m talking about fellow Christians—brothers and sisters in Christ who are equally committed to living out his love.

And you know what? They completely disagree with one another.

There are some on the far right who do little more than throw out proof texts, regardless of context, remaining certain that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Then there are some on the far left who continually speak of love (rightfully so), but seem to gloss over the many difficult texts that appear to portray homosexuality as falling short of God’s ideal.

And then there are a few nearer to the middle who honestly and carefully wrestle through these things, digging into the context while also keeping God’s love at the forefront. This is where I want to be, but even here, everyone seems to come down on one side or another. Preston Sprinkle and Matthew Vines are two fine examples of these committed Christians who, despite their extensive studies, have ended up on opposite sides.

The issue is complicated further by its intensely personal nature. Being gay is not a choice; it’s an identity that defines the way a person feels. So if I condemn homosexuality and I’m wrong, then I’ve condemned the identity of countless brothers and sisters—for nothing! I’d be telling them to deny who God made them to be.

On the other hand, if homosexuality is sin—if it is a result of the fall, displeasing to God and harmful to humans—then how could I condone it, knowing that it will lead these brothers and sisters to their own self-inflicted suffering?

But here’s the thing. I just don’t know. I’ve read the likes of Vines and Sprinkle and many others; I’ve studied the Bible thoroughly on the matter, examining context and keeping God’s love at the forefront; I’ve tried as best as I know how to put myself in the place of others and interact with those who disagree; I’ve heard many really good (and really bad) arguments on both sides; and I just don’t know what the truth is.

Sure, I have some thoughts, ideas, and opinions on the matter. There are some lines of reasoning that make more sense to me than others. And at times I lean more in one direction than the other. But this issue is simply too important to just pick a side.

Here’s what I do know.

1. God is love. Love is the essence of who God is. Love defines God in every way. Through the cross, Jesus demonstrated that God’s love is universal and unending. If homosexuality is a sin, then God doesn’t love gays any less for it. And if homosexuality is not a sin, then God doesn’t love gays any more for it.

2. Our primary mandate is to love others. The entire New Testament, from start to finish, is saturated with the call to love others. Love is so essential that Jesus said the entire law hangs on it, and Paul said that the love of neighbor fulfills the entire law. There is nothing more important than love.

3. Jesus never tried to save face when loving others. He was more than happy to be associated with sinners. He didn’t care if his opponents accused him of endorsing sin; he was too busy loving people. He ate and drank with thieves, prostitutes, and adulterers; and at times, he did so without even calling for their repentance. He focused on loving them first and foremost. Their repentance happened naturally.

4. If homosexuality is a sin, it’s no worse than any other sin committed by Christians every day. It’s no worse than pride. It’s no worse than gluttony. It’s no worse than nationalism. It’s no worse than idolatry. It’s no worse than sectarianism. I could go on, but you get the idea. If I have to separate from my gay brothers and sisters because of their homosexuality, then there are precious few people I won’t have to separate from—including myself! If gays are automatically excluded from the table of Christ, then Christ is dining completely alone, and he has been for 2,000 years.

Whether homosexuality is or isn’t a sin, my response to it should be the same: love. I need to love and support gays in the same way I love and support heterosexuals. I don’t support gays because they’re gay any more than I support heterosexuals because they’re straight. I love them all because God loves them all. I’ll allow the Holy Spirit to convict where conviction is needed.

I choose to support gays because if I must err, I would rather err on the side of love. This does not mean I affirm that homosexuality is pleasing to God. I have to be honest and say that I don’t know whether it is or not. But I do support gays as my equals in every way. And as far as it relates to our secular government, I support providing gays with equal access to the same privileges we all enjoy.

I’m inviting my fellow Christians to join with me. Whatever you may think about homosexuality, choose to make love the priority.

How to Redeem Psalm 137:9 (Smashing Children against Rocks) and Other Imprecatory Prayers

2015-06-17T21:14:00.002-04:00

It is, without a doubt, one of the most disturbing verses in the Bible.

How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock! (Psalm 137:9, NET)

It’s sickening! How could anyone even think of smashing innocent kids against a rock, let alone imagine being blessed for such an action?

How on earth could an inspired Bible include such a travesty? What’s going on here?

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and reading recently about violence in the Bible and what we should make of it. Along with that, I’ve been questioning what it means for the Bible to be inspired, and how we’re supposed to interpret it. And you know what? I haven’t come to many firm conclusions yet. I’ll be sure to let you know if I do.

But for now, what I do know is that the Bible is somehow inspired by God. And I know that the Bible—all of it—is profitable for us as Christians. So even a verse as horrible as Psalm 137:9 must have something positive to teach us. That’s what I want to look at now.

* * *

Psalm 137 is an example of an “imprecatory” psalm. That’s a fancy way of saying that such psalms “invoke judgment, calamity, or curses, upon one’s enemies or those perceived as the enemies of God” (Wikipedia).

One of the most important things to remember with the Psalms is that they are expressions of human emotion. Regardless of how you might view inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility, we can at least agree that the Psalms accurately express what the psalmists were feeling. Imprecatory psalms are directed to God, but they come from the perspective of men.

This shows that God wants us to be honest with him. Even though the desire for vengeance is wrong, God still wants us to honestly express what we’re feeling.

Furthermore, in most cases, such imprecatory prayers resolve with the psalmist entrusting his sinful desires to God. The psalmist chooses not to take vengeance into his own hands. Even though he wants to see his enemies destroyed, he trusts God to act justly on his behalf.

So, for example, when David prays, “Let death deceive them. May they descend to Sheol alive, because evil is in their home and heart” (Psalm 55:15, LEB), he immediately follows it up with, “As for me, I will call to God, and Yahweh will save me. Morning, noon and night I will lament and groan loudly, and he will hear my voice” (verses 16–17).

These psalms should not teach us to desire vengeance. Rather, they teach us to be honest with God about our struggles and to entrust those struggles to him.

* * *

With this in mind, let’s take another look at Psalm 137:9. In context, the psalmist is speaking as a captive during the Babylonian exile. The Babylonians had quite literally smashed Israel’s own children against the rocks. The psalmist responds honestly, saying that he wants revenge. “May the same fate befall the Babylonians’ children!”

Now let’s be clear that such vengeance is not God’s will. God absolutely does not consider a man “blessed” who takes vengeance on his enemies’ children! These are, however, the accurately recorded feelings of the psalmist. His wish for revenge is wrong—but it is at least honest. And ultimately, the psalmist asks Yahweh to punish the Babylonians (verse 7), rather than taking it into his own hands.

In summary, Psalm 137:9 records the words of a man, representing a brokenhearted people whose lands have been taken and whose children have been killed. He pours out his heart to God, honestly expressing his understandable anger, along with his sinful desire for vengeance. And he places his anger in God’s hands, allowing Yahweh to act on his behalf.

* * *

What are we to redeem from this?

First, we can never use such verses to excuse violence or to endorse our hatred of enemies. Jesus’ words on this matter are perfectly clear (Matthew 5:43–48), and his testimony must trump all others.

However, we do need to be honest with God. Even when our desires are wrong, we need to express them to God. He knows about them anyway, and he forgives us.

And finally, when we have such desires, we have to entrust them to God. Rather than acting out our sinful wishes, we place our anger in his hands, and we trust that he will make everything right in the end.

A More Christlike God

2015-06-03T10:33:00.001-04:00

What is God like? Is he an angry deity, eager to pour out his wrath on sinners? Or is he a loving Father, seeking to save all of his lost children? And where do we look to determine what God is like? To the Bible, certainly, but to which parts of the Bible?

Do we look to Psalm 7:11–12, where “God is angry with the wicked every day,” and “If he does not repent, he will sharpen his sword”? Or do we look to 2 Peter 3:9, where God “is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”?

Do we look to 2 Kings 1:10–12, where Elijah prayed, and “the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed” over a hundred men? Or do we look to Luke 9:54–55, where Jesus rebuked two of his disciples for suggesting such a thing?

If we try to take every verse of Scripture at face value, we’re going to come to some strange conclusions. Maybe God is bipolar, or maybe his nature changed between the testaments, or maybe the Father is wrathful while the Son is loving? Obviously, such conclusions are not options within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

Thankfully, the Bible also makes it clear that Jesus is the only perfect revelation of the Father. (See my earlier post, “The Invisible Man and His Shadow.”)

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:18, NIV)

The Son is the image of the invisible God, … (Colossians 1:15, NIV)

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. … (Hebrews 1:1–3, NIV)

So when we look for God in the Bible, we must start with Jesus as the center of all revelation. Everything else must be interpreted in his light.

* * *

This is the kind of stuff I’ve been processing lately. Folks like Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, and Derek Flood have also been capturing this vision of a Christlike God, and I’m immensely grateful for their contributions to the discussion.

But what I’ve not previously seen is a broad theology to flesh out the details and bring the various pieces together. And this is what we find in Brad Jersak’s recent book, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel.

His is not an academic book (though ample references to academic works are provided). Rather, A More Christlike God is pastoral in nature, geared toward those readers who may be struggling with false images of God.

At the same time, speaking as one who started the book in basic agreement with the premise, I still found plenty of things to challenge my current understanding and to push me closer to our beautiful, Christlike God.

I wholeheartedly recommend that you read A More Christlike God, no matter what your view of God may be. Agree or disagree, you won’t finish this book without at least having some things to think about.

On a personal note, for those of you who may be struggling with some of my theological changes or wondering how I’ve come to the conclusions I have, this book may go a long way toward helping you at least understand where I’m coming from. Brad Jersak has put forth my own theology in a far more eloquent manner than I’ve been able to describe thus far. Of course there are differences here and there between Brad’s theology and mine, but on the whole, he has perfectly captured and explained the essence of what I believe to be true about God.

Disclosure: the publisher, Plain Truth Ministries, sent me a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.

Pick up your copy of A More Christlike God as a paperback or a Kindle eBook.

Desire Found Me by André Rabe (Book Review)

2015-05-02T12:26:00.000-04:00

In his introduction to Desire Found Me, André Rabe makes a bold claim:

This book is a risk. A risk to your current state of mind, a risk to some of your deeply held beliefs and as such a risk to who you think you are. (page 7)

This comes shortly after what he said about the writing of this book:

I eventually realized that I was not dealing with just another topic, another set of concepts, another perspective, but rather, with the essence that connects them all. As such no one concept or perspective could ever adequately describe it. (page 4)

Such statements set up rather high expectations. The content had better be revolutionary to live up to that. Unfortunately, I did not find that to be the case.

I really wanted to enjoy Desire Found Me. And it’s not by any means a bad book. But it just sort of fell flat for me. I had a really hard time getting into it, especially in the first part of the book.

It’s divided into three parts: “Reflective Human Nature,” “Developing Stories,” and “Redefined.” Throughout, André Rabe describes and builds on René Girard’s mimetic theory. There’s definitely some good stuff in here, but it’s hardly as revolutionary as the introduction would lead one to expect.

I enjoyed the final part of the book much more than the rest. The thing I appreciate most about Girard’s mimetic theory is how it plays into Christ’s atonement, and Rabe does a great job of fleshing that out here. I just wish the book hadn’t taken so long to get to the good stuff.

All-in-all, I really do appreciate the picture of God presented in Desire Found Me. Unlike so much of modern Western theology, it presents a God who truly is love; a God who is for us not against us; in short, a God who looks exactly like Jesus, forgiving his enemies while dying on a cross. For this reason, the book is worth recommending.

Every attempt of man to know and describe God has proven to be utterly futile. The only possible way to know God is if he takes the initiative to make himself known.

The Word that became flesh is God’s initiative to reveal himself and to deliver us from ourselves. He came to deliver us from our own imaginations, the circular reflections in which we were caught with no way out. He came to break the perverted mimetic cycle in which we had nothing but one another’s confusion to reflect. Victims and victimizers were endlessly recycled with the pain and injustice simply taking different forms. Salvation is nothing less than God taking the initiative to break this hypnotic cycle by revealing himself. (page 325)

Like most books worth reading, I found much that I agreed with, much that I disagreed with, and much that I’m still not sure about. I’ll let you decide such things for yourself as you read your own copy. Pick up Desire Found Me as a paperback, a hardcover, or a Kindle eBook.

Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from SpeakEasy in exchange for an honest review.

A Wolf at the Gate by Mark Van Steenwyk (Book Review)

2015-04-23T20:43:00.001-04:00

Having previously enjoyed Mark Van Steenwyk’s The unKingdom of God (see my review), I was delighted for the opportunity to read his new children’s book, A Wolf at the Gate. I have an almost-two-year-old son, so I read it out loud to him to see what he thought of it as well.

I’d like to first note the format of this book. Based on the illustrations I saw online, I initially believed this would be a short picture-based book, but it’s quite a bit more than that. The book’s seven chapters take up 76 pages, with many full-page color illustrations scattered throughout. I’d guess that about a fourth of the pages are illustrations.

Speaking of the illustrations, they’re beautiful! Joel Hedstrom did an excellent job creating them to be distinct and attractive. However, a handful of them were a bit intense (a wolf attacking people, etc.). There was no gore, but they were just a little frightening, and I chose not to show those ones to my young son. Older children will probably be fine with them, but individual parents can be the judge of what is appropriate for their kids. The majority of illustrations should be fine for everyone.

As for the story itself, it is a wonderful retelling and expansion of the legend of Saint Francis and the Wolf of Gubbio. I found it to be a very enjoyable tale with engaging characters and many important lessons throughout. My son seemed to enjoy the book as much as he could be expected to at his age. He loved the illustrations that I did show him. And I’m looking forward to reading it with him again when he’s a bit older and able to understand and appreciate the different themes presented therein.

Thank you, Mark, for sending me a copy to review!

Pick up your own copy of A Wolf at the Gate as a hardcover, a paperback, or a Kindle eBook.

The Day I Met Jesus by Frank Viola and Mary DeMuth (Book Review)

2015-04-03T18:00:00.000-04:00

Frank Viola is one of my favorite authors. By contrast, I had never read anything by Mary DeMuth before, but I figured she must be alright if Frank chose her as a coauthor. Baker Books Bloggers sent me a free copy of The Day I Met Jesus in exchange for an honest review.

If you’ve read Frank Viola’s earlier book, God’s Favorite Place on Earth (or if you remember me reviewing that one previously), you can expect a very similar format with this one. In fact, the two books fit so well together, it makes me wonder why Frank went with a different publisher this time. (David C. Cook published God’s Favorite Place on Earth, along with a number of other books from Frank Viola.) I’m probably just too perfectionistic, but it does bug me a bit that the two books don’t match on the shelf.

Like God’s Favorite Place on Earth, The Day I Met Jesus follows the stories of certain people who interacted with Jesus in the Gospels. Both books use the same pattern—each section includes a novel-like dramatization of a biblical account, then the biblical text itself, and then some exposition on the text. While God’s Favorite Place on Earth centered on a single household in Bethany, The Day I Met Jesus covers five separate women who met Jesus.

While I appreciate both books, I enjoyed Frank’s earlier effort quite a bit better. It just clicked more for me than this one did. The Day I Met Jesus seems to be more specifically targeted toward women, and the style of writing is rather more flowery than what I tend to read. This is not a complaint against the book; it’s just a personal preference.

I should also note that the material this book covers is more adult in nature—prostitution, adultery, etc. I don’t mean to say that there’s anything inappropriate in the book; Frank Viola and Mary DeMuth handled the subjects tastefully. Still, you might want to be aware of what you’re going to be reading about.

All in all, I did enjoy The Day I Met Jesus, and I’m happy to have read it. Pick up your own copy as a paperback or as a Kindle eBook. (As of my posting this, the Kindle version is on sale for just $2.99!)

Dear Tim @Challies, You Don’t Have to Deny Hell—or Anything Else

2015-02-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

Dear Tim,

You may or may not know who I am, but you and I have actually appeared in print together. An article you wrote on hell was placed right next to an article I co-wrote on technology in the July–September 2012 issue of Answers magazine. A few months after that issue was published, I was asked to resign from my position at Answers in Genesis due to my belief in hell as annihilation.

But that’s enough about me. I’d like to respond to your recent blog post, “What I Would Have To Deny To Deny Hell.” In your post, you assert that a denial of hell would also necessitate a denial of the following:

What Jesus taught
The plain sense of Scripture
The testimony of the church
The gospel

Denying hell?

Before I examine your four main points, let’s be clear about what you mean by “denying hell.”

You referenced a certain “disaffected Evangelical” who “had decided to use his platform and popularity to question the very notion of hell.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume you are referring to Rob Bell. His view of hell is certainly different from the one you hold (different from the one I hold as well), but is it fair to say that he has denied hell?

I’m no student of Rob Bell, but it’s my understanding that he advocates universal reconciliation (or Christian universalism if you prefer). Yet this perspective does not deny hell in any way. Held by such distinguished theologians as Karl Barth and George MacDonald, not to mention the church father Origen, universal reconciliation understands the nature of hell to be restorative, rather than retributive.

You and I disagree with the exegesis of those who hold this view, but the claim that they deny hell is entirely untrue and unfair.

What then of annihilationism (or conditional immortality)? Held tentatively by John Stott and held firmly by such church fathers as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons, this perspective understands the nature of hell to be ultimately destructive, eventually resulting in complete cessation of being for its inhabitants.

You and I disagree with each other on the exegesis here, but again, the claim that such a view denies hell is untrue and unfair.

I believe in hell. I do not believe in some version of hell that owes more to Dante and The Far Side than sacred writ, but the hell I see revealed in the Bible.

I agree with those words verbatim. I simply see the biblical revelation of hell a little differently from you. And the proponents of universal reconciliation have yet another way of looking at it.

In fact, I don’t know of any major Christian theologian who actually denies hell altogether. A different perspective on the nature of hell is not a denial thereof.

So let’s be honest—when you say “deny hell,” you really mean “disagree with my understanding of hell.” But I digress. Let’s see if an understanding of hell that is different from your own would really necessitate the four denials you have asserted.

Denying what Jesus taught?

I could point to Matthew 10:28, where Jesus said that hell involves the destruction of both body and soul. Or I could point to Matthew 13:24–43, where Jesus said that the unrighteous—like the weeds in his parable—will be completely burned up (rather than continue burning forever). Or I could point to Mark 9:47–48, where Jesus quoted Isaiah, comparing hell to a pile of rotting corpses (rather than conscious persons in torment). Or I could point to John 3:16, where Jesus contrasted eternal life with perishing, rather than eternal torment.

But of course you would respond with a different interpretation for all of those verses. So which one of us is denying Jesus’ teachings? Neither of us. We can both affirm the truthfulness of everything Jesus said while acknowledging that you and I interpret some of his teachings differently.

As for the specific parable you cited, it speaks of Hades, not hell. So whatever one might think about the validity of this parable’s descriptions, it refers to the intermediate state, not to the final punishment.

Denying the plain sense of Scripture?

In addition to the words of Jesus I referenced above, I could point to Romans 6:23, where Paul said that the wages of sin is death, rather than torment. Or I could point to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where he said that the eternal punishment is one of destruction. Or I could point to Hebrews 10:27, where the author said that God’s adversaries will be consumed by fire, rather than be tormented in it forever. Or I could point to 2 Peter 2:5–6, where Peter said that the flood of Noah’s day (in which the unrighteous were destroyed) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (“reducing them to ashes”) were both appointed as examples of the destruction that is to come for the ungodly.

Or I could point to any one of the many Old Testament examples:

“For look! The day is about to come, burning like an oven, and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble. The coming day will consume them,” says Yahweh of hosts. “It will not leave behind for them root or branch.” (Malachi 4:1, LEB)

I could go on, but I think that’s enough to make the point. You of course have responses to all of these passages (and some of them are really good responses), but that doesn’t change the fact that “the plain sense” of such texts leads to annihilation, not eternal torment.

For any position you might take, you’re going to find some verses that “plainly” agree with your view, and you’re going to find some others that will need an explanation. The work of the biblical exegete is to compare all such passages and determine the contextually correct meaning (not necessarily the “plain” meaning) from the big picture.

And we must maintain humility while doing so. The idea that your view follows the “plain sense” while other views ignore it is just not accurate. We’re all doing our best to understand the Scriptures correctly. Have some grace toward those who disagree with your interpretation.

Denying the testimony of the church?

I already gave examples from the early church fathers who supported universal reconciliation and annihilationism. The fact of the matter is that all three views have been present since the early church—no matter how strongly some proponents of eternal torment may try to deny it.

Furthermore, annihilationism has never been condemned by any church council. And the teachings of Origen were not condemned until the Second Council of Constantinople—300 years after his death. If you consider that council to be authoritative, then you’re also going to have to agree with their decision that Mary ought to be called the “Mother of God,” rather than just the “Mother of Christ,” and that she remained a perpetual virgin. Not many Protestants are willing to accept those parts of the council.

I won’t deny that annihilationism and universal reconciliation have tended to be minority views throughout church history, but so has Protestantism as a whole. And you, Tim, are a Protestant in the Reformed tradition, which bears the slogan “always reforming.” This means that no teaching is beyond biblical scrutiny. No point of theology is so locked down that it cannot be altered if Scripture so demands.

I realize that you honestly do believe the Bible teaches eternal torment, and that’s fine. But even you would change your view if you thought that the Bible taught otherwise. Scripture, not church history, is our authority.

Denying the gospel?

We need to be very careful here. A denial of the gospel is no casual claim to throw around. Though you may not have phrased it as an accusation, you have essentially attributed the teaching of a false gospel to many of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope that was not your intention.

If we are going to assert that a certain eschatological understanding amounts to a different gospel, we had better have solid biblical support for such a claim. More specifically, the Bible must very explicitly define the gospel to include the point in question.

With that in mind, I would challenge you, Tim, to show me where the Bible states that hell (of any understanding) is a part of the gospel. To my knowledge, such a biblical statement doesn’t exist.

Jesus died to save us from our sins—this is a part of the gospel according to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4. But the Bible never says that Jesus died to save us from hell. Hell is simply the option that remains for those who reject Jesus’ salvation from sin.

And again, even if hell was a part of the gospel proper—which it isn’t—no one in this debate is denying hell. We simply have different perspectives on the nature of hell.

Conclusion

Tim, your reading of the Bible leads you to believe in eternal torment, and so you hold fast to the position. That is commendable. I would not ask you to believe something that you think the Bible contradicts.

However, my reading of the Bible leads me to believe that eternal torment is not taught anywhere therein. My denial of your interpretation is not a denial of hell; it is simply a different perspective on it.

Your view is not the only one that claims the authority of Jesus’ words; it is not the only view that is based on biblical exegesis; it is not the only view that has historical grounding in the church; and it certainly is not the only view that agrees with the gospel.

So I would encourage you, Tim—please be gracious to your brothers and sisters in Christ whose studies of the Scriptures have led them to different conclusions.

Your brother,
Chuck McKnight

The unKingdom of God by Mark Van Steenwyk (Book Review)

2015-02-02T09:55:00.001-05:00

Mark Van Steenwyk’s The unKingdom of God is one of those books that makes me feel like I’m reading my own story. Of course Mark’s background is pretty different from my own, but the struggles he’s had with mainstream Christianity and the changes he’s gone through in his theology completely resonate with my own experience.

As an example, let me just share a short excerpt from Mark’s introduction:

An interesting challenge quickly emerged. … I assumed that the Bible was full of metaphors and poetry and prose and illustration. I didn’t read it literally. Except for the parts where it was, you know, obvious. I treated the life and sermons of Jesus in a much more straightforward manner than, say, the book of Revelation or Jesus’ parables.
Little did I realize that this was exactly backwards. The really obvious statements about turning the other cheek or selling your possessions were obviously not obvious. And the seemingly obscure and esoteric visions found in Revelation were, in fact, pretty easy to understand. Just substitute “locusts” for “helicopters” and “beast with seven heads and ten horns” with “European Union.”

I didn’t grasp my backwardness right away. The first inkling came during youth Sunday school on a Sunday when, later during the service, we were going to honor the veterans. …

During Sunday school, the youth leader asked for prayer requests. And so, head filled with recently acquired New Testament insights of a radical Jesus, I offered to pray that God would forgive our church’s war vets for killing their enemies.

That didn’t go over very well. The youth leader got mad. Finger-pointing-in-face mad. I was genuinely confused by his anger. I wasn’t trying to cause any trouble. But I quickly learned that my way of reading the Gospels was inadequate and that my respect for my elders was insufficient.

That’s the story of my life. I was born and raised among conservative Christians who constantly stressed the need to read the Bible for yourself and take it at face value. But that’s not what they really meant. They actually meant, “Read the Bible through the lenses we give you, and interpret it exactly as we do.”

The moment I actually did start reading the Bible for myself and applying the really obvious parts, I became a compromising liberal who was dangerously close to being a heretical cultist.

Love your enemies? Sure, but only if they aren’t also God’s enemies. In that case, look to the Old Testament conquest narratives to learn how to deal with them. But doesn’t God love the whole world? No, Jesus couldn’t have possibly meant what he clearly said. God only loves his elect. He hates sinners. Just forget what Jesus taught and keep going back to the Old Testament.

Nonsense!

And sadly, such a horrible reading of the Bible is not limited to the fundamentalist circles I came out of. This way of thinking has contaminated many of the largest segments of the church for most of its history. Instead of advancing the kingdom of God through self-sacrificial love of enemies, we’ve advanced the agendas of empires, persecuting those who disagree with us.

Christianity has so much to repent from. We need to own up to the horrible things that have been done in the name of Christ. We need to personally repent from them. And then we need to actually change as a result.

If none of this strikes a chord with you, then I don’t know if I’d recommend that you read this book. But if you do see a contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and the examples of his followers—and if you want to be a part of changing that—then I would definitely recommend taking a look at The unKingdom of God.

That said, I don’t mean to sound as if this book is the be-all end-all “thing we’ve been missing” to save the church. What Mark has given us is a starting point. He’s initiated a conversation that needs to be had. And he has modeled the repentance that we need before any true change can occur.

Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from SpeakEasy in exchange for an honest review.

The Invisible Man and His Shadow (An Allegory)

2015-01-18T17:33:00.002-05:00

There once was an invisible man. Though no one could see this man, they could see his shadow. Over the years, people tried to learn about the man by observing his shadow. They recorded their findings, carefully documenting every detail they saw in the shadow.

But they ran into some problems. …

[This post has moved. Read the rest at my new blog, HippieHeretic.com.]

The Nature of Hell—a Skeleton in God’s Closet?

2015-01-01T16:09:00.001-05:00

Joshua Ryan Butler’s The Skeletons in God’s Closet goes a long way toward correcting many of the harmful caricatures of God. As I stated in my review, I really appreciate Butler’s perspectives, even though I don’t agree with all of his conclusions.

As promised, I will now examine his view of hell in greater detail and respond with some thoughts from my own view.

Butler starts by examining the caricature of hell as an underground torture chamber (pages 4–5). He and I both disagree with this picture. Hell is not underground, its purpose is not torture, and it isn’t constructed as a chamber.

That said, while an underground chamber may be the pop-culture view of hell, I don’t personally know of many Christians who view it that way. The caricature I hear from most Christians is that hell exists as an alternate spiritual dimension. Some view this place as a literal lake of fire, and others view it as simply a place of separation from God.

But whichever caricature we start with, Butler and I would agree that both are unbiblical.

In confronting the caricature, Butler overviews the biblical story of heaven and earth:

“Heaven and earth are created by God.”
“Heaven and earth are torn by sin.”
“Heaven and earth are destined for reconciliation” (page 8).

That last point about reconciliation is particularly important. At the resurrection, we will not abandon earth and fly away up to heaven. Rather, Jesus is going to bring heaven down to earth. God is reconciling heaven and earth. He is going to renew the earth and give us resurrected bodies to live with him forever on earth.

As for those who reject God, their fate is also tied to this earth. However, they cannot bring their sin with them into God’s perfect kingdom. So what is to be done with them?

According to the traditional view, these people must be sent off to hell (whether that be an underground chamber or a different spiritual dimension) where they will suffer eternal torment. Again, Butler and I both disagree with this caricature of God’s solution.

Hell takes place here on earth. It is “outside the city,” as Butler so persuasively argues. But its purpose is not torment. Butler and I both agree with C.S. Lewis: “All that are in hell choose it.” God invites everyone to join him in his city, but we must repent of our sin and place our trust in Jesus to enter. Those who refuse leave themselves no other option but to remain outside.

Will there be torment? Yes, I imagine they will be greatly tormented, but this torment is self-inflicted. They are tormented by their own choice of separation from the only one who could give them peace and happiness.

Up to this point, Butler and I have been pretty well in agreement. Here’s where we diverge.

I believe in Conditional Immortality (or Annihilationism). According to this view, those who choose separation from God remove themselves from the one who holds them in existence. Thus they can no longer exist, and they will ultimately cease to be.

Butler rejects this view. Instead, he argues that God will simply allow the unrepentant to go their way. They and their sin will be contained away from the rest of God’s redeemed creation, but they will otherwise be allowed to continue as they please.

In arguing against Annihilationism, Butler makes the following remarks:

First, it is problematic because Christ has conquered death: the grave is no longer an option. … Because of Christ’s victory over death, the cessation of existence is no longer possible. Christ’s Life-giving victory lays life’s claim upon even the one who turns away, … Annihilation minimizes the scope and power of Jesus’ resurrection.

Annihilation is also problematic for a second, more basic reason. At its core, it is like God saying, “Marry me or I’ll kill you.” … Our everyday etiquette and common sense shows: life “outside the city” is more merciful than annihilation. God does not shoot us if we refuse to be with him; he simply hands us over to our refusal. … God’s most merciful option is simply to let us go our own way, to hand us over to the decision we have made. For God to annihilate the unrepentant sinner like a spurned lover would be an act not of mercy but of spite on God’s part. (pages 63–64)

I’m going respond to Butler’s arguments in reverse order.

“Marry me or I’ll kill you.”

Throughout his book, Butler does a tremendous job of dismantling caricatures. However, when it comes to Annihilationism, I fear he has created a caricature of his own. In his version of Annihilationism, God is a vengeful lover, proposing to his would-be bride while holding a gun to her head. This is certainly not an accurate picture of God, but it’s also not the view I hold.

To correct this picture, the gun would have to switch hands. God is not pointing it at his beloved; she’s pointing it at herself. God is pleading with her, “Please put the gun down. I know what you’re going through, but I promise I will make everything right if you’ll just trust me.”

God does not kill sinners out of spite. But he does allow them to make their own decisions. Some will insist to the very end that they want separation from God, so God will grant their request. But of course no one can exist apart from God, as he alone holds everything in existence. They get their wish, and thus they cease to be.

The beloved pulls the trigger, not God.

According to Butler’s view of hell, while God allows sinners to go their way, he still keeps them alive for all of eternity. But is that really more merciful? On their own, they would suffer an eternity of misery, cut off from the one who could bring them joy. That’s still eternal torment, even if it is self-inflicted. By choosing to keep them alive, God chooses to prolong their anguish.

Imagine that a loved one is in the hospital on life support. With her body shut down, a machine is the only thing keeping her alive. All chance of recovery has passed. Theoretically, the machine could keep her alive indefinitely, but for what? To let her suffer? Furthermore, she’s made it clear that she does not want to be kept alive by this machine.

Unplugging her would not be an easy decision, but it’s the only right decision to be made.

When Adam and Eve sinned and broke fellowship with God, he removed them from the Garden of Eden so that they would not live forever (Genesis 3:20–22). This was an act of mercy. God knew that an eternity in sin was a fate worse than death.

Yes, God could keep alive those who reject him, but they would only be living on life support. It would serve no purpose other than to keep them in pain. The most merciful option would be to give them what they want. Unplug them from life support, and let them go.

Christ has conquered death

According to Butler, “Christ’s Life-giving victory lays life’s claim upon even the one who turns away.” In a sense, this is true. At the resurrection, God will raise everyone back to life—thus rescuing even the unrepentant from the first death.

However, those who persist in their rejection of God will face a “second death” (Revelation 20:14; 21:8). We can certainly debate the nature of this second death, but we cannot deny that they will in some sense die again.

The New Testament is full of this dichotomy between life for those who accept Jesus and death for those who reject him:

“For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.” (John 3:16, LEB)

“Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and who believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24, LEB)

“And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish forever, and no one will seize them out of my hand.” (John 10:28, LEB)

For the compensation due sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23, LEB)

We know that we have passed over from death to life because we love the brothers. The one who does not love remains in death. (1 John 3:14, LEB)

Butler asserts that “the cessation of existence is no longer possible.” This is a fascinating statement, and I’d love to hear him flesh it out more. His basic premise here is that Christ’s resurrection means God’s victory over death, ruling out the possibility of one’s ceasing to exist.

By contrast, I would argue that cessation of existence is the only possibility for those who ultimately reject Jesus.

God alone possesses immortality (1 Timothy 6:16). Therefore, we do not have immortal souls.
Jesus holds everything in existence (Acts 17:28; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). So those who reject Jesus reject their source of existence.
While believers will be given immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53), those who reject Christ will face destruction of both body and soul in Gehennah (Matthew 10:28).

This is why Annihilationism is more accurately known as Conditional Immortality. God offers everyone the gift of eternal life in immortal bodies, but that gift is conditioned on our submission to Jesus as Lord. We cannot accept God’s gift while rejecting his Son. Those who reject Jesus reject life. Cessation of existence is the only remaining option.

Butler further asserts that “Annihilation minimizes the scope and power of Jesus’ resurrection.” On the other hand, I would argue that his view minimizes the scope and power of Jesus’ ultimate victory over evil.

Therefore also God exalted him
and graciously granted him the name above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow,
of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth,
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9–11, LEB)

The day is coming when every knee will bow to Jesus, and every tongue will confess that he is Lord. All things will be subjected to him (1 Corinthians 15:27–28). But this cannot be true if a remnant of humanity continues to oppose Jesus for all eternity.

According to Butler’s view, the unrepentant will be segregated away, preventing them from contaminating the rest of God’s perfectly renewed creation. But this means that God’s creation will never fully be renewed. Part of God’s good earth will always be contaminated by sin.

This is not ultimate victory.

I don’t want to sound too negative toward Butler or his view of hell. As I’ve stated before, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness he has put into it. His perspective has challenged and enriched my own, and for that I am thankful. Furthermore, when opposed to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment, I would side with his view any day.

However, when opposed to the view of Conditional Immortality, I believe that his view presents a God who is less merciful toward sinners, that it misses the mark on God’s ultimate victory over evil, and that it does not fit as well with Scripture as a whole.

But I’d love to hear feedback. What are your thoughts? What else am I missing? Let me know in the comments below.

The Importance of Giving up Our Rights

2014-12-13T19:07:00.000-05:00

Yesterday morning, I made an offhand comment on Facebook:

I’m always amazed to hear Christians talking about “defending our rights.” One of the most fundamental aspects of Jesus’ message is that we must give up our rights.

I should have known better.

I thought this was one of those things all Christians agree about in theory and just have a hard time remembering and practicing. I get that. I have a hard time letting go of my rights. It’s one of my biggest struggles on a day-to-day basis. In that comment, I was preaching to myself as much as to anyone else.

Yet I wasn’t expecting to return and find a barrage of comments from Christians actually arguing against the principle of self-denial.

Giving up one’s rights is implicit in pretty much everything Jesus taught. He rarely opened his mouth without referencing this principle in one way or another. But since further explanation is needed, let’s survey a few of the more explicit statements from Jesus about giving up our rights.

According to the United States Declaration of Independence, God gave mankind the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But according to Jesus, we can’t truly follow him until we let go of such things. I couldn’t state it any clearer than Jesus already did:

And summoning the crowd together with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life on account of me and of the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:34–35, LEB)

To the earliest disciples of Jesus, this meant submitting themselves to persecution, imprisonment, and death—exactly the opposite of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And they were to choose this willingly. They were not to fight back against their oppressors.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also. And the one who wants to go to court with you and take your tunic, let him have your outer garment also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38–42, LEB)

With these incredible words, Jesus instructed his followers to give up their “rights” to retaliation, to dignity, to legal protection, to their time, to personal ownership—and I don’t think he meant that to be an exhaustive list. This doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy such things if we have them. But we must not cling to them. Jesus freed us from the need to fight for our rights. (Click to tweet!)

We can rest in the knowledge that our Father knows what we need and will provide accordingly. Our job is simply to seek his kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:31–33).

The principle of self-denial is not merely something Jesus requires of his followers—it is firmly rooted in his own actions.

But Jesus called them to himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions exercise authority over them. It will not be like this among you! But whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be most prominent among you must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25–28, LEB)

“For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am in your midst as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:27, LEB)

So when he had washed their feet and taken his outer clothing and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you speak correctly, for I am. If then I—your Lord and Teacher—wash your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that just as I have done for you, you also do. Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand these things, you are blessed if you do them.” (John 13:12–17, LEB)

Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, complete my joy, so that you are in agreement, having the same love, united in spirit, having one purpose. Do nothing according to selfish ambition or according to empty conceit, but in humility considering one another better than yourselves, each of you not looking out for your own interests, but also each of you for the interests of others.

Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped,
but emptied himself
by taking the form of a slave,
by becoming in the likeness of people.
And being found in appearance like a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to the point of death,
that is, death on a cross. (Philippians 2:1–8, LEB)

Jesus, as God himself, has every right imaginable. But he didn’t cling to his rights as God. He gave up his rights and became a human. And while he could have been born as a human king or emperor, he chose instead to come in the most humble circumstances. Though he is Lord and Teacher, he did not exercise his authority to “lord it over” his followers. Rather, he put himself in the position of the lowest slave and washed his followers’ feet. Finally, he gave up his rights to a fair trial and to life, willingly submitting himself to an unjust death.

It may be tempting to think that Jesus only gave up his rights in order to be our Savior. But these passages all make it clear that Jesus gave up his rights to be both our Savior and our example. We are to give up our rights in the same way that Jesus gave up his.

With all that being said, here’s what I don’t mean by giving up our rights.

First, I certainly don’t mean that we shouldn’t fight for the rights of others. As followers of Jesus, we must take the side of the oppressed and the less fortunate. We should absolutely do our part to bring about justice for others. But we don’t need to worry about justice for ourselves. As we just read, “each of you not looking out for your own interests, but also each of you for the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4, LEB).

Second, as I mentioned earlier, I don’t mean that we shouldn’t enjoy whatever rights we happen to have. Those of us in America are privileged to be in a country with many liberties, and we’re free to make use of them. But our first thought when exercising our rights should be to use them for kingdom purposes—just as Paul did when asserting his Roman citizenship.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. What happens when our rights are infringed? Do we immediately go into self-defense mode, fighting to keep our rights? Or do we go into self-denial mode, submitting to injustice for the glory of God?

The Book I Contributed to Is Now Available!

2014-12-03T11:38:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to give a quick update and let you know that Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity is now available!

If you get the Kindle edition, you’ll be able to read it immediately. Or, if you have Amazon Prime, you can get the paperback with free two-day shipping. (And you can get a free 30-day trial of Prime if you don’t already have it.)

In addition to getting a copy for yourself, it would also make a great Christmas gift.

Order your copies today!

The Skeletons in God’s Closet by Joshua Ryan Butler (Book Review)

2014-11-18T01:24:00.000-05:00

We believe that God is love and God is good. All Christians affirm these simple truths. But for a God whose defining attribute is love, his actions don’t always appear to be very loving. And for a God who is perfectly good, he seems to have done some things that aren’t very good at all.

Does our beautifully good God have an ugly side? Does God have something to hide?

In The Skeletons in God’s Closet, Joshua Ryan Butler sets out two answer three questions: Would a merciful God send people to hell? Would a loving God condemn people at the judgment? And would a good God wage holy war?

Butler contends that we have set up caricatures of God—pictures that contain a semblance of the truth without the substance of reality. Throughout the book, he dismantles these caricatures, replacing them with pictures of God that are much more accurate, much more biblical, and much more beautiful.

If you enjoy the writings of C.S. Lewis, you’ll likely enjoy this book as well. Lewis’ influence is evident throughout, especially in the first two parts of the book. And much like Lewis’ work, Butler’s thoughts proved to be enjoyable, even when I disagreed with his conclusions.

Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I was actually partway through his Pilgrim’s Regress when I started reading The Skeletons in God’s Closet. That was fine at first, but when I reached chapter four of Butler’s book, I quickly realized just how extensively he was going to rely on The Pilgrim’s Regress. How’s that for my timing? Fearing spoilers, I had to grudgingly put down Butler’s book and finish Lewis’ book before continuing.

But it was worth it. Both books are excellent.

On the subject of hell, the thing I appreciate most about Skeletons is the terrestrial nature of Butler’s eschatology. In other words, it all takes place here on earth. We don’t go away from earth and up to heaven; Jesus brings heaven down to earth. Likewise, hell is not some other dimension out there in the aether; it’s a real physical place on earth—outside the city, as Butler so carefully reminds us.

I’m really intrigued by the model of hell Butler proposes. It is very similar to the view of C.S. Lewis, but Butler has fleshed it out in greater detail. Still, while I agree with the majority of details leading up to his conclusion, I disagree with the conclusion itself. But that’s all I’m going to say about that for now. I plan to do another post soon in which I’ll explain my own view and respond more fully to his.

[Update: See my post, “The Nature of Hell—a Skeleton in God’s Closet?”]

Butler’s view of judgment is also very similar to that of Lewis. It borders on inclusivism without quite spelling it out. I found myself mostly in agreement with Butler in this section—more so than in the others. While I’m not ready to affirm inclusivism (and I’m not sure if he is either), I remain hopeful. But one burning question was never explicitly addressed: Must we affirm belief in Jesus during this life in order to receive eternal life after the resurrection?

The section on holy war was, in my opinion, the most disappointing—but that’s not to say that I didn’t thoroughly enjoy it. It was well thought out, and Butler successfully displaced many of the caricatures that surround the subject. But it was disappointing for me because Butler accepts the notion of a “just war.” Furthermore, while he critiques “the myth of redemptive violence,” he still believes that violence can serve in a positive “preservative” function.

For my part, I have come to believe that Jesus’ command to love our enemies means we must swear off violence entirely. That said, I still agreed with many of the basic principles Butler advocated, and I particularly enjoyed his treatment of the lake of fire. (And yes, he places the lake of fire within the subject of holy war rather than hell.)

All in all, I really appreciated The Skeletons in God’s Closet. While Butler and I differ a bit on some of our ultimate conclusions, we’re obviously both looking at the same beautiful picture of God revealed in Jesus Christ. I’m glad that I read his book, and I would without hesitation recommend that you do the same.

Pick up your copy of The Skeletons in God’s Closet for Kindle, for Vyrso, or as a paperback.

Disclosure: I received a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.

Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity

2014-11-07T00:41:00.000-05:00

A renewal is taking place in God’s church. People are realizing that we don’t need all the ritual and tradition we’ve added over the years. We’re returning to the simplicity of the earliest believers. But if we’re not careful, we could allow this renewal to divide us from those who don’t share our views.

So I’m thrilled to announce the upcoming release of Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity. Twenty-four of us have come together to share the passions that drive us—while keeping unity as our focus. We certainly don’t agree with one another on everything, but we share a common Savior.

In my chapter, I discuss the way we hold to our theological convictions. Why do we allow our differences to separate us? Can we remain united in Christ while maintaining our specific beliefs? Should we defend sound doctrine? What makes a belief heresy?

Check out this excerpt for a sample. I haven’t read the other chapters yet myself, so I’m really excited to get my own copy!

Here’s how to preorder your copy:

Paperback from Redeeming Press (the publisher)
Paperback from Amazon
Kindle eBook from Amazon

The New Covenant by Bob Emery (Book Review)

2014-09-17T00:12:00.000-04:00

The New Covenant is a collection of three historical novels by Bob Emery which were originally published separately. In this volume they are labeled as parts titled “The Messenger,” “The Message,” and “The Marriage: The Final Revelation.” All three feature the Apostle John as the main character.

Part I follows John and Timothy as they tour Jerusalem and discuss the life and times of Jesus. Part II dramatizes the writing of the books of the New Testament by John and the other apostles. And in Part III, John spends an evening discussing the book of Revelation with a group of believers.

These are very unusual novels. I don’t mean that in a bad way, but they’re not what one would typically expect. They’re really commentaries as much as they are novels. While they do have loose storylines, those stories are really only there for the sake of the discussions, in which the characters present Bob Emery’s theology. This is not necessarily bad. It allows Bob to present his theology in a much more conversational manner than he could in a “normal” commentary. Just don’t expect it to flow like a “normal” story would.

As with any commentary, I found things I agreed with, and I found things I disagreed with. I learned some new things, and I read a lot of things I already knew. I won’t take the space to dissect all that in detail here, but I did enjoy and profit from the book as a whole.

Pick up a copy of The New Covenant for yourself as a paperback or a Kindle eBook.

Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from SpeakEasy in exchange for an honest review.

Is God Pleased about the Death of His Saints?

2014-09-11T00:15:00.000-04:00

There’s a certain verse that gets quoted at just about every Christian funeral. I’m sure you’ve heard it before. I usually hear it in the King James Version, which goes like this:

Precious in the sight of the Lord
Is the death of his saints. (Psalm 116:15, KJV)

What are we to make of this? Does God enjoy seeing his followers die?

First, there is some truth to the idea that for the believer, “to die is gain,” as Paul said in Philippians 1:21. However, we have to remember that Paul said this as one half of a paradoxical statement.

On the one hand, death would be to his gain—it would mean going to be with Jesus. But on the other hand, he knew God still had work for him to do here on earth. “I don’t know which I prefer:” Paul said, “I feel torn between the two” (Philippians 1:22–23, NET). So we shouldn’t take his statement out of context to say that death is always better than life for the believer.

Furthermore, the larger context of Scripture paints death as the great enemy of God (1 Corinthians 15:26). Certainly, God can redeem death and bring good out of it—God can redeem anything. But that does not mean he is actually pleased with death of any kind, let alone the death of his faithful followers.

But let’s go back to Psalm 116. If we look at the psalm as a whole, we’ll have some context to understand verse 15. As soon as we begin reading, we see that it is a psalm of praise to Yahweh. But what is the reason for this praise? The psalmist praises God, not because God will reward him after death, but because God rescued him from death:

The ropes of death encircled me,
and the distresses of Sheol found me.
I found trouble and grief.
Then I called on the name of Yahweh:
“O Yahweh, please save my life!”
Gracious is Yahweh and righteous,
and our God is merciful.
Yahweh watches over the simple.
I was brought low, but he gave me victory.
Return, O my soul, to your repose,
for Yahweh has dealt bountifully with you.
For you have rescued me from death,
my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
I will walk before Yahweh
in the land of the living. (Psalm 116:3–9, LEB)

God’s deliverance from death is the theme of this psalm. The idea that it teaches God’s pleasure in death makes no sense. And it shouldn’t make sense, because that isn’t what verse 15 means.

Our confusion comes from translating the Hebrew word yāqār as “precious.” It’s an accurate translation, but precious has multiple meanings. In modern usage, precious tends to mean “cherished” or “enjoyable.” If we assume that meaning, we’ll think God cherishes or enjoys the death of his followers.

But the primary meaning of precious (and of yāqār) is “costly.” With this definition in mind, we can see that the verse actually teaches the opposite of its popular interpretation. The death of God’s followers is costly to him because he values their lives.

The Lexham English Bible’s literal translation makes this clear:

Costly in Yahweh’s view is
the death of his faithful ones. (Psalm 116:15, LEB)

The NET Bible’s paraphrase also conveys this well:

The Lord values
the lives of his faithful followers. (Psalm 116:15, NET)

So is God pleased about the death of his saints? Absolutely not! He values life, not death.

A Farewell to Mars by Brian Zahnd (Book Review)

2014-07-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

There was a time when Brian Zahnd prayed war prayers, asking God to bless America’s militarism. He, like so many other American Evangelicals, had a picture of God that was much more akin to Mars, the god of war, than to Jesus, “that preacher of peace.” But Brian has repented of his nationalistic idolatry, and he invites us to do the same.

This book was of interest to me, as I too have recently become convinced that Jesus taught a gospel of peace and nonviolence. We simply cannot fulfill his command to love our enemies if we kill them. A Farewell to Mars promises to chronicle Brian’s “own journey from war crier to peacemaker” as he “reintroduces us to the gospel of Peace.”

Having now read it, I’m simultaneously delighted and disappointed. Delighted because I enjoyed every page—and disappointed because the book failed to do what it promised. This is a fantastic book; it simply is not the book that was advertised.

First and foremost, I wanted to read Brian’s personal journey, but the book included very little about that. I saw a few events prior to his conversion to nonviolence, and I certainly saw where he stands on the subject today, but I saw almost nothing about the conversion itself. All I know is that he is sorry for things he previously said and did.

Second, I expected to see an introduction to Christian nonviolence, but that too was missing. Nonviolence is pretty much taken for granted from the start. While he discussed some of the relevant texts, I don’t think these discussions would be very convincing to the average Christian who is still steeped in nationalism.

But don’t let these disappointments keep you from reading it. Taken for what it is, this book is truly excellent. No, it is not a primer on Christian nonviolence (but for that we have Preston Sprinkle’s wonderful Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence). Rather, A Farewell to Mars fleshes out Jesus’ call to nonviolence into a full, rich theology.

More than anything else, this seems to be a book of eschatology. Don’t misunderstand that word; we’re not dealing with things that are yet to come. Brian’s eschatology is one of the here and now. According to the Apostle Peter, we are already living in the last days (Acts 2:14ff). And we Christians are to be bringing Jesus’ kingdom of peace to earth right now—we must not simply wait for Jesus to do that when he returns.

While I can’t say I agreed with everything Brian had to say, every bit of his book made me think, and that’s the kind of book I love to read. I especially appreciated his insights regarding the Valley of Hinnom, though I won’t spoil those for you here.

To the correct person, I would definitely recommend A Farewell to Mars. If you are currently unconvinced of Jesus’ call to nonviolence, then maybe it isn’t for you—not yet anyway. Start with Preston Sprinkle’s Fight instead. But if you have already come to embrace Jesus’ gospel of peace, then you should absolutely pick up a copy of this book. You’ll be glad you did!

A Farewell to Mars is available in both Kindle and paperback formats. I’d like to thank David C Cook for sending me a copy to review.