Why I Finally Disagree with Derek...

Some college students in our Sunday School class recently asked a question about the rights and wrongs of using profanity in Christian music and the boundaries for Christian artists, as well as the issues revolving around same sex attraction and the church. I don't think I am necessarily an authority on music, but I think the Bible is the same for all Christians. That being said, I have wanted for a couple of weeks to respond to Derek Webb's new single, and so here goes:

For anyone who knows me, you probably know that while I haven't always been a blind follower of Derek Webb, he has always been at the top of my favorite artists. I have met him numerous times, from the days with Caedmon's Call to when he began his solo career and was literally playing to 20-30 people who didn't know much about him.

So, whatever you read here, the argument back can't be that I am not familiar with Derek, how he writes, what he really means, etc. I have been listening to him for 10 years, and I can still play some of the songs he wrote 8-9 years ago and never released, but because I was a dork and in the Caedmon's Call fan club "The Guild" I got the special unreleased music.

The title of the new single that he has released is called "What Matters More." Here is a link to the new video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC0j6FTg1xU

Now what I write is not meant to be an attack back at Derek, or more name calling and verbal shoving. Whether or not his fans would like to admit it, we have come a long way from the early singles of Derek Webb on evangelism and the church (see his first album "She Must and Shall Go Free") to his current music writing and style. Each album of his has gotten progressively more political, and more and more the mercy that he calls for is lost in the heavier and heavier attacks and jabs he has at believers.

So, not to get too far off this subject, I want to write why I feel that this single is not just edgy or controversial, but that it is just straight up wrong. This is where I finally have heard a song of his and said "I can in no way support that."

The argument of Derek's song in summary is this - "Stop judging other forms of sexuality, instead focus on the people who are dying every day who need to hear the gospel and be helped in their daily lives." The real message of the song that I take away is this: "People are dying without the gospel because you are worrying about what the Bible says about sexuality."

So, that being said - these are my problems with the song and the stance taken by Derek Webb:

1. The argument that because the conservative churches in America are holding to the doctrine that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, they are failing the needs of the world at large and don't care, is petty and unfounded. His argument is a ridiculous notion, and Derek has no grounds for this. Ironically though, this is the major call of the modern emergent church. If you read Rob Bell long enough you will gain this kind of sense that because we are focusing on some things, we are not doing other things. The hindrance to us caring for and reaching the nations is conservative teaching and Biblical morality (not the idea that moral behavior saves us, but the idea that moral behavior is what God commands us, and those commands deserve our obedience). That is unfounded, unbiblical, and not historical in terms of Christian history.

I don't appreciate the arrogance that Derek and those who would throw up their hands and cheer at this video portray. What makes Derek think that he and his followers care more about the world at large than theologically conservative believers? The largest mission agency in the world is the International Mission Board, a fruit of the SBC, a very conservative denomination. I could name off countless missionaries who gave their lives in dark places who believed the things that Derek condemns in this video, simply because Scripture teaches them.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing from people who want to criticize because it makes them feel superior or not part of the guilty party. That is called self righteousness. For as much as Derek has spent his musical career teaching against it, this video in my opinion is a thesis for it (it just doesn't look the way that the modern Christian thinks it is portrayed). Making the claim that Biblical teaching is distracting from our ability to reach people is a lie, and an arrogant one at that.

2. There is no substantive argument over translation, or what certain things mean in the Bible when discussing homosexual acts as a whole. You cannot make that argument looking at Biblical language. Let's just leave the book of Leviticus out of the discussion since there are laws there that are obviously not pertaining to believers in Christ. The Greek in Romans 1 leaves no mysteries unless you are desperately clawing at trying to prove a presupposed thesis. That teaching occurs in several of Paul's letters and is backed up by Old Testament Scripture as well. I am not focusing on any kind of statement about blind condemnation for everyone who has dealt with homosexuality, I am simply saying that the argument cannot be made that the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. So, Derek's mentioning of arguing over translation is reaching at best.

3. On dealing with the profanity that Derek uses, I know that this isn't a major major major thing. But it is worth mentioning. I get questions about whether or not the Bible teaches that profanity is wrong. In my own life, I have had periods numerous times where my belief became that profanity wasn't as big of a deal, and began to throw words around that I shouldn't. God brought me out of that years ago.

But here is why I think it's worth mentioning. Ephesians 5:4 says "let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." Paul had just previously in that chapter called the Ephesians to be imitators of Christ. With those things being said, I cannot in any way justify profanity. It never makes my case stronger, especially when trying to deal with spiritual subjects. I know that Derek's thought is probably something like "well, if you got as upset over my words as you did over people dying, something is wrong with you." There is some truth to that, but it is hard for me to feel that his speech is laced with the desires of Christ both in the teaching he espouses and in the words he uses to try to add emphasis.

*Now - so you don't think I am crazy, let me talk about the inevitable things that you are thinking:

- Don't we need to reach out more effectively? Yes. Christ went to the darkest places, and he didn't hang out with folks just to show them some love and hope they would figure out the gospel on their own. We will never help people by trying to keep the message of Scripture from them, but instead sharing it. People need the truth more than they need you to love them. I am not being harsh, I am being honest. They need our love, they really need the truth of God in Christ.

- Aren't we supposed to not judge one another? Yes. But when you look at the Greek of that word, in Matthew 7 "judge not, lest ye be judged" and following, it takes two English words to really wrap our brain around what it is talking about. Judge and condemn. We are called not to condemn people, to leave them alone to wrath, to make ourselves feel better by putting them down, to compare ourselves to them and think more of ourselves and less of them, to take joy in their fallenness. Anyone who has seen Christian web sites such as "god hates fags" dot com has seen that there are "Christians" who condemn with nothing but pure hatred. It has nothing to do with faith, love, or hope. We are not called to do that or any of the things mentioned, but we are called to love people.

That being said, our parents loved us when they pointed out our mistakes in an attempt to help us and to save us from certain things. We learn nothing from Scripture when we turn a blind eye to the world and not try to teach them what God says, not as our opinion chiefly, but simply that we believe it because God says it.

*I have lived with and embraced one person in particular who was struggling with homosexuality who we prayed with and came to us. Numerous others as well I have had friendships with, and had these discussions. I am not an experienced person in counseling or reaching out specifically to those who experience same sex attraction, but I have loved and cared for and walked with several people I care about through this very tough issue. I wanted to say that to make sure that my arguments weren't taken from a cold perspective, or someone who had never walked through these things with anybody.

*For additional reading, if anyone is interested, Randy Newman's book "Questioning Evangelism" offers great insights on dealing with many of these issues in love and truth. He dedicates an entire chapter just to this issue, and what the Bible says and what our response is. Also, for anyone that is in the college class at FBC Welcome, there is a testimony that will be in written form for you to download in the coming days on www.firstbaptistwelcome.org/college.htm from a woman who walked in this lifestyle and had much to say of it.

What does the 23rd Psalm mean?

My wife and I were in a meeting last night where a woman opened the meeting in prayer after reading from the 23rd Psalm. She had an Amplified Bible translation so the reading went something like this:

The Lord is my shepherd, [to feed, guide, and shield me] I shall not lack.

It was then that she prayed a prayer thanking God that he wanted his children to prosper and that was His great hope for all of us.

It really struck me as to how much misunderstanding there is over what Scripture means.

The emphasis of the 23rd Psalm is that SINCE the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. Why? Because everything I could ever want has been fulfilled completely in who God is and salvation. This promise is not temporal, it is not physical. I am not in lack of want because God is here to provide everything for me. No doubt God does provide for each of us. But I am not in want because the Lord is my shepherd, he is my portion forever. There is nothing that need be added to the gospel to make it more appealing, God is the shepherd, I have no more need to want anything besides Him.

Book Review: The Prodigal God (Keller)

The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller - 4.5 out of 5 stars

My brother bought me this book for Christmas, and I finished it today. I actually was able to go through the entire book today, while taking notes, so you can know that it isn't a huge book. It is small and roughly 13o pages.

The story itself centers around the Prodigal Son (it is completely about the Prodigal Son). He overwhelmingly focuses on the elder son in the story.

Let's start with what I really liked about the book. Tim is very well read, and intelligent. He's a great pastor from everything I can gather at Redeemer Pres. in NYC. He brings out some great stuff in the story and is also able to add an incredible amount from stories and examples in real life.

One of his most striking points is when he discusses how the "Prodigal Son" is the only passage of the three in Luke 15 that doesn't involve someone physically being gone and retrieved, and he makes the claim that perhaps it should have been the older brother to do the retrieving. Keller argues that in a way, Jesus is how the older brother should have been - he left his glory, emptied himself and came to earth to die for the sake of all of us who were guilty while he was innocent. Now this illustration obviously is not what the Scripture says, and depending on how deep you want to go with that it could have its problems, but it still made me look at the story in a new way and with new insight. After all, God implied to Cain that he was his brother's keeper, and no doubt the elder son in Luke 15 was his brother's keeper as well.

Some of my favorite quotes in Keller's book are as follows:

-There are some traditional looking elder brothers that, as a release valve, maintain a secret life of younger brother behavior.
-Elder brothers obey God to get things. They don't obey God to get God himself - in order to resemble Him, love Him, know Him, and delight him.
-One of the ironies of the parable is now revealed. The younger son's flight from the father was crashingly obvious...though the older son stayed at home, he was actually more distant and more alienated...because he was blind to his true condition.
-This quote by John Newton in one of his hymns was one of my favorites as well: Our pleasure and our duty, though opposite before, since we have seen his beauty, are joined to part no more.

The only negative aspect, I think, of Keller's book comes in small sections, and I think after reading the book can only be gleaned from misinterpretation. It is really hard to discuss self righteousness and distinguish between that and piety or seeking to imitate Jesus as Scripture commands. It's hard at certain times for Keller to seem like he isn't making the argument that both doing good and bad things are just as pointless. Quotes that would be dangerous by themselves are:

- (When speaking about the elder son) "it's not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast with his Father." - well, not exactly how I would put it, and that would be dangerous if not seen in the light of what Keller really means about the elder son's righteous acts being meant to earn his Father's riches and position.

- "So religious and moral people can be avoiding Jesus as Savior and Lord as much as the younger brothers who say they don't believe in God and define right and wrong for themselves." Well, possibly, but that is also going to need a lot of explanation to what you mean by that as well.

Other than that, Keller makes a couple of claims about the points of Jesus' parable on the Lost Things that I don't find as outright wrong, but I just personally disagree with. I don't think that Jesus "is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders" in these parables. I think this story has depth to offer everyone. I'm not sure that Jesus' intent was primarily directed at the Pharisees on this story as Keller suggests, though he has every right to make that assumption.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. I think you will too. This is a great book for anyone interested in the story of the Prodigal Son.

Jesus as the climax of history...

The more I walk through Scripture the more I see that Jesus is the center of everything that ever happened. I made this video several years ago, and we use it each year during our Christmas services. It is pretty basic, my video editing skills were even worse than they are now, but I never cease to be so moved by the message. I love the song, off of Andrew Peterson's Christmas Album which goes with the video - Deliver Us (Derek Webb is actually the one singing it).

Part of what makes Christmas so great is not just the supernatural aspects of it, but the humanity of a people long desperate for a Savior to come, long desperate for hope. Hope you like this :).

What craziness...

Okay, very soon I hope to be showing baby pictures and things like that. For all concerned, we are scheduled to get a picture of "pregnant Laura" next Monday, so hopefully she'll make it until then (we aren't due until the 25th). For a little while, this will be my last non baby post :).

I have been absorbed for some time in my last language for a while (Thank God!!). Biblical Greek has its quirks, but I am finding Biblical Hebrew is just as crazy.

Hebrew was originally, and still written today in Israel with no vowels. NO VOWELS! How crazy is that? Luckily for me, the Masoretes in about the 6th century wrote some vowels to help folks learn Hebrew, they are written above, underneath, or to the left of the consonants (Hebrew is read from right to left).

Once again I am humbled at the thought that God has maintained his word through means that seem so immensely complicated to me. It's rare that I look down at the Old Testament and think of it as a string of Semitic letters that originally had no vowels, and got taken through all kinds of transmission and translation before it made it to me. It would have been so easy for someone to give up at some point and not do the hard work to make Scripture accessible to people, but thankfully they didn't.

Through my own failings in language I see the dedication that it took to get God's message of love to me. In all my frustration with the tediousness of it, I hope to be happy about the fact that people came before us and did the work for us, and people today are still sifting through countless documents comparing and justifying what is there for our sake.

More thoughts on the Shack...

I think from what I have seen the overwhelming praise for the book has been the author's ability to write on dealing with hurt. I was pretty captivated for the first few chapters of the book when the story of his daughter is taking place. I've read an interview transcript from him, and Young has been through some unbelievable pain.

I could honestly say that I didn't have a problem with about 80% of the book. I wouldn't label myself with some sort of conservative label that would say that I would be out to get anyone with new ideas, or something like that. I actually read the book expecting to really be taught some great stuff, I hadn't heard anything bad about it from anyone, only praise.

I had problems with several things. I don't necessarily think that the author is trying to be deceptive, but at the very least I think that his portrait of God falls terribly short of what the Bible points to. To name a few:

1. The conversations that Mack has with Papa, specifically the headphone conversation in the kitchen over "West Coast Juice" scream the idea that God is somehow pleased in the overall efforts and emotions of people despite anything else. I can't find support for that. Everything that I see in the nature of God in the Bible is a complete opposite screaming of "the only thing I care about, and the only chance you have is to know me." I never see God delighting in the wrongdoings of people saying "they're just letting off some steam, and with good reason too."

2. Young espouses theology, even though he might not claim to do so, and much of it is wrong. His modalist portrait of all three persons of the Trinity having scars from the crucifixion is not Biblical. Yes, the mystery of the Trinity is not something that is easily explainable, but the Bible along with any creed of the church you want to look at shows clearly that while being one substance, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one person.

During a conversation with "Jesus" Mack is told by Jesus a series of things that reaches towards his humanity, and Young doesn't portray an emptying of glory and divine nature only, but "Jesus" talks about himself as only being used of the Father and having no power of his own. I don't think that is consistent with the Bible either. If Jesus was fully God and fully man, if a woman who grabs his cloak leaves him saying "I felt power go out of me", if he forgives sins face to face without any sort of asking permission of the Father, but by his own authority, how can he only be a human vessel?

During one of Mack's conversations with Papa, on page 120, Papa says "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment...it's not my purpose to punish it, it's my joy to cure it." That is complete heresy, there's no excuse for that. It's not mistakable for something else, but that statement is so dangerous and anti-Scriptural it's not even funny. No doubt sin has consequences which are punishing, but you can not read anything in the Bible, anything, and support that, and to teach that sort of statement is to cheapen the gospel.

3. I can't help but see Young's portrait of God as well as just overwhelmingly demeaning, even though I know it is in an attempt to help his readers to understand the compassion of God and the personality of God. There are certain segments of the book that I think Young comes close to presenting a good picture, but he tries so hard to make God into what he thinks he must be like, that he leaves the true God somewhere far back on the road. We live in a culture that constantly tries to help people know God more simply, or create a sense of "Wow, I never thought that about God before!", that we don't try to be consistent with what the Scripture teaches, because it is far more rewarding to have people say nice things about us. We try not to, but Bruce Almighty shapes what we think about God, the Sistine Chapel shapes what we think about God, our Sunday School felt boards, shape what we think about God. I'm convinced anew after reading this book that we can't keep trying to draw God out based on what our own understanding of what he must be like because of our own experiences and thoughts on ethics, morality, and spirituality. I'm reminded of the Israelites at the foot of the mountain begging Aaron to create an image of gold for them because worshiping an invisible God wasn't working for them anymore.

This book is far too problematic for me to support, and I have to say that I think it is dangerous.

I've read Pilgrim's Progress several times. Eugene Peterson is crazy and I hope desperately mistaken to say that this book is the Pilgrim's Progress of our generation. If that is true, we are in trouble. Virtually everything in Pilgrim's Progress points me to an understanding of what Scripture teaches, not the author's own experience. Those two works are not even in the same universe with each other, and neither are Bunyan and Young.

The Shack: A Review

The Shack: William Young

In 2008 I was really excited to get to read a book that was fiction again. I had been forced to walk through loads of textbooks for Seminary, and I was really looking forward to a book that was recommended to me. The book that seemed to be all the buzz with 20-somethings was this one, William Young's The Shack.

After reading it, I could see why so many of my friends liked it. This book is an outside the box sort of approach at God, reminded me a little of a C.S. Lewis type attempt. Overall, I think we all love books that make us think things like "Wow, I never really looked at it that way before." Young is a great storyteller, the book was really captivating in a lot of places.

Overall though, I am going to have to give a mostly thumbs down to this book, I just wanted to give you some reasons personally.  Here are my thoughts:

The Positives:

1. Young is a great storyteller, and the way he speaks about depression, sadness, and emotion in this book are, for the most part, really well done. As he talks about personal loss, he does a great job of bringing you in, and touching on the kind of grief that accompanies really difficult circumstances.

2. Some of the messages on redemption and deeper faith have a lot of worth. While this book has its problems, it does touch on a deeper spiritual walk that is personal and real, as opposed to religious and distant. That is a really positive message to take away, I just wish that Young could have achieved that same goal while not portraying God as carelessly as he does.

The Problem Areas:

Voltaire once said that "God created mankind in His image, and mankind has been trying to return the favor ever since." In my opinion, that really sums up the root of the problems with this book.

1. Young seems to bring in the Trinity in a way that he thinks will be the most different to popular thinking. No doubt God is not white, No doubt God is not man in the same way that I am, no doubt when we see God someday we will find that he is different than we thought. Having said that though, we have so much given in the Bible about the nature of God. Young doing doesn't just miss the mark of what any preconception about God I would have is, he also misses any mark that I see Scripture setting for the nature of God. This is the same kind of "Bruce Almighty" mindset that "the true nature of God must be something that makes for snappy quotes, and new ways of thinking contrary to any previous ways of thought or precedent."

2. Young seems to try to make the point that anything that anyone would have ever done to try to please God or draw closer to Him was really a waste of time. This comes out in a number of scenes, one is the scene of "God" dancing to the beat of funk music. The problem is not because God is dancing, or because the music is funk music, but because the message underlying that whole conversation (you would have to read it) is something like "why did you ever try to listen to music or do anything that seemed to focus or honor me? If only you would have opened yourself up, and see the good in everything the way that I do no matter what kind of things people are saying, you would know who I am more fully than you do now." I could see a lot of people reading/seeing that and thinking "well I guess God doesn't care what I do." What the Bible seems to say is that God wants people to know him desperately. He rejoices in nothing else. He never seems to take joy in "the heart and emotion of people" in a way that makes that less crucial or important. 

3. Young espouses theology, even though he might not claim to do so, and much of it is wrong. Many people defending this book have said "he's not writing theology, it's a story." Actually, any time you write about God, you are writing theology, whether you want to be doing so or not. A few areas where things can be really misleading are:

One of Young's criticisms from the beginning was that his portrayal of God was "modalist." This is a term for the belief that God only exists as one form of the Trinity at a time. For example, in the book, God the Father has scars from the crucifixion. This helps to jog someones thoughts on the closeness of God in and with Himself (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) but it is incorrect and misleading. 

During a conversation with "Jesus" Mack is told by Jesus a series of things that describes his (Jesus') humanity, and I believe Young goes too far in trying to rob Jesus of His divine power. This is another historical discussion/argument within some points of church history called the kenosis doctrine (Just how much did Jesus empty Himself of when He came to earth?). The Bible talks about Jesus being emptied of His position, place, and glory (Phil 2) but not of His divinity or divine power.  Jesus was fully God and fully man. A woman grabs his cloak and He says "I felt power go out of me." Jesus forgives sins face to face without asking permission of the Father, but by his own authority. So yes, Jesus was and is submissive to God the Father, but we miss the fullness of the gospel if we simply try to say He was powerless and simply human while here on earth.

My biggest frustration was during one of Mack's conversations with Papa (God the Father). On page 120, Papa says "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment...it's not my purpose to punish it, it's my joy to cure it." That is a major problem, and there's no excuse for that. No doubt sin has consequences which can be punishing, but that is dangerously misleading. In the Bible, Jesus speaks even more about hell than He does heaven. All of us face punishment for sin, and the forgiveness God offers through Jesus is the only solution.

4. Eugene Peterson said something like "this book has the capability to do for this generation what Pilgrim's Progress did for Bunyan's generation." I really like a lot of what Peterson has written, but this book, I think, is not even in the same universe as Pilgrim's Progress. I honestly have no idea why Peterson would say that. The stories are not similar, and even the allegorical style is not similar, so this book is definitely not a modern Pilgrim's Progress. Pilgrim's Progress deals with the nature of man, sin, salvation, trials, Biblical teaching, and amazing allegory. It never seeks to take away the glory and majesty of God to sell more books, or sound smart.  It was said of John Bunyan that "if you cut him he would bleed Scripture." I don't think anyone will say that about William Young. If you were curious, I'd encourage you to pick up a modern translation of Pilgrim's Progress and give it a read.

I am not on a campaign against this book/movie, but my hope is that no one would casually take some new understanding of God from this, because there is a very high chance that it would be wrong. Any human work of literature is like a rotisserie chicken - meat and bones. It's important to be able to tell the difference. In my opinion, there's more bones in this work than many other Christian fiction stories.  It's really popular now in Christian circles to say "if it promotes diversity and new understanding then it must be true." Instead, can we please have diversity, new understanding, and integrity at the same time? If you want to enjoy the Shack, just make sure you're also enjoying your Bible.