Unbelief as the origin of sin

I have noticed lately that I search around for validation or encouragement to a sinful degree. We had an absolutely positive business meeting last night at church. Though we had a lot to talk about it turned out great. Afterward what did I want? Validation for the ‘importance of my role’. I sought discussion on the topic that I might find compliments. I’ve found myself doing this before too.

I mention it because of a simple rule: all sin has its core in unbelief. If I fully believed passages such as Philippians 1:6, “And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” then I would be confident that I had nothing to boast about it my accomplishments but could only boast in Christ, His work and His work in me through His Holy Spirit. Also I would find encouragement from this verse promising that God truly is working in me (Philippians 2:12-13 too).

Now to be clear, the sinful part is not the need for encouragement. One of the things the church is called to do is encourage (Hebrews 10:23-25). But to avoid sin we must not desire encouragement above our desire to see Christ glorified for His work on the cross, His resurrection, His mediation in heaven for us, and the work of the Holy Spirit in us which is the only thing that causes any good to be done by us.

So let us truly take hold of God’s Word in faith to fight and rid ourselves of unbelief.

Hate Crimes

I don’t know much about hate crimes or their legislation but I put together a few thoughts when I heard that Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (one note is that nothing has passed to make topics of speech hate crimes).

First, I think it points to some truths that are written on everyone’s heart. The motivation behind a crime is important. This is why the Lord gave Israel different consequences for intentional murder than for unintentional murder.

Second, a difference between hate crimes and intentional/unintentional murder is the defense’s ability to defend against hate crimes. One scenario would be a murder where a person of one race murders a person of another race. In this scenario the person did not hate the other person because of race but because he was from a different gang, an Asian gang.  How would the defense attorney convince a jury that a hate crime should not be added to the sentence? It was murder so there was obviously hate there. It was also the murder of someone of a different race. And, on top of that, the murder probably wouldn’t have occurred if the person were not Asian. So if the murderer wouldn’t have killed the Asian women he saw in the store the day before, how does the defence prove that? So we need to be extremely thankful that God is just and will correct and sort out our miserable attempts at justice on earth.

Third, in our scenario, what are the chances of the same hate crime being added if that gang member murders a heterosexual white male in the prime of his life?

Fourth, isn’t there already a system by which the sentence can be extended because of the heinousness of the crime?

Fifth, we should be grateful that politicians are working to remove inequalities from laws that give protection for one group of people while excluding others.

In summary, today is a day to celebrate because our laws harbor less prejudice. But it is also a day for concern that some laws are created with a strong indication of being used in only some cases. But mostly it is a day for the praise of God, that He is sovereign and perfectly just to judge all circumstances, actions, and motivations.

Now or Lastingly?

There is a great section in Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan where the Interpreter shows Christian two children (whose names I forget). The one child will have all good things now. The other child will wait for their good things. The Interpreter explains that it is better to wait because first must give place to last and the things that come first will end but those that come last will be there lastingly.

In our Christian lives we must remember that it has been granted to us to suffer now but have our rich inheritance when Jesus Christ returns. With that in mind persevere and find yourselves in these kids:

For more on the test see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amsqeYOk–w&NR=1

We need more of this… anyone in?

Check out this street preaching group and follow @LawGrace to see some of the front lines we need to be participating in: http://www.twitvid.com/E955E

The man on the chair and the two beside him (along with the video operator) are the street preaching group. There is a “heckler” they call “Goad” (as is “goading you on”) who by God’s providence gathers more people through his confrontation and antics (he’s the one moving around most in the video).

‘The Shack’, A Note from Philip Young: Chapter 5

'The Shack' by William P. Young

I have a tight schedule so I might need to be more brief with these next chapters. In this chapter looms the appearance of Young’s god, who appears as a woman. I struggled with my view on this. Could God appear as a woman? Would God appear as a woman? Is it wrong to cast God as a woman? It all came down to four things: 1) the note in chapter 5; 2) Philip’s request in John 14:8; 3) impossible sight of the Father; and, 4) the second commandment in Leviticus 10:1-3.

First, Young writes that Mack tells his friend Willie, “I guess part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note”. Then later he laments to himself, “To think that I hoped God might actually care enough to send me a note!” The best we can say here for Mack is that maybe he’s an unbeliever acting like an unbeliever. The words I quoted are some of the most ungrateful words I can think of. God, who has sent His very Son Jesus, who has given Him over to suffering, who has punished His own Son for the sins of a rebellious people, this mere man Mack compares such evident love to the arrival of a note. And the disgust inherent in Mack’s ingratitude gives us insight into the other two things.

Second, John 14:8-9 reads, “Philip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, “Show us the Father”?’” Jesus is obviously offended that Philip would want to see the Father because the Father is in Jesus. If you see Jesus you have seen the Father. This should have been enough for Young. If any revelation was actually needed beyond comforting Mack with his Bible then only Jesus should have showed. Instead we have the blasphemous creation of papa and the lesser-spirit. Jesus would have been equally disappointed if Young had asked Him to show us the Father.

Third, not only is there no need to see the Father but it is impossible. Consider Exodus 33:20, John 6:46, and 1 John 4:12 on this subject. We can see that death would result from seeing God, who Jesus specifies as the Father and John confirms still that no one had seen Him. Jesus was incarnated to be seen, in part. The Father’s holiness is not shielded like that of the Son. Mack would have died in the presence of the Father or Young has stolen the holiness of the Father so Mack could tolerate it.

Fourth, the second commandment reads, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). An interesting application of this occurs in Leviticus 10:1-3 which reads,

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the LORD spoke, saying,
‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy,
And before all the people I will be honored.’”
So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.

Nadab and Abihu die because they have worshiped the Lord by altering/perverting what He described as proper worship. The second commandment is against this, against worship of God by altering/perverting the forms of worship He has given – idolatry. This is what Young is doing – attaching an incarnation (and gender) to the Father and the Holy Spirit which God has not done or authorized or commanded or permitted.

So for these four reasons we begin our discovery of a false trinity in The Shack: 1) an insult to Jesus’ work; 2) an insult to Jesus’ deity; 3) a less-holy father; and, 4) creating idols by adding humanity to the Father and Holy Spirit (which Young shows here and tells us of it later).

‘The Shack’, A Book and a Prayer: Chapter 4

'The Shack' by William P. Young

This chapter describes The Great Sadness which weighs down much of the book. To properly critique this book we have to keep in mind the overwhelming shock and sadness of the main character’s daughter being kidnapped and murdered. During these times our minds our saturated with sin. Our sinful nature tries to dominate and Satan has an easier time tempting than usual (this is why I recommended practicing trust in God’s sovereignty a few chapters ago).

There are two major parts of this chapter that will take our attention. The first is prayer. The second is the Bible. Young intersperses the tragedy of Missy’s death (Mack’s daughter) with the prayers that Mack and others pray. One prayer of Mack emphasizes our own need to pray in times of desperation and stress. It is another great area to practice, praying always so we always default to praying in every circumstance, not just tragedy but also in times of joy – praising God for His good providence in all situations. Another time Mack shows his dependence on God by praying. This is always a commendable aspect of our prayers, telling God we are very familiar with the fact that He is good and sovereign and in control and we are not any of those things.

Second, Young offers some degrading remarks on the Bible. One reads, “Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book [the Bible]“. First, The Shack is a book. So Young is elevating his book over the Bible. What Young is trying to argue for is direct communication with God. Seeing that he confronts the Bible, he’s trying to argue for revelation from God (not to Him in prayer) that is equal to the Bible. There are so many problems with this. First of these problems is that the Bible says it is sufficient for us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So the Bible is profitable for all these things, with a purpose “so that” we are quipped for “every” good work. In other words we don’t need direct communication from God in order to make sure we know what good works to do and how to do them. We need the Bible. Second, the Bible does not tell us of any other tool we have that can equip us for every good work. Third, the Bible itself speaks of God beyond His activities in the Bible. Passages like Psalm 115:3 tell us that God does whatever He wants. There’s no greater un-boxing or un-booking God than that. Fourth, there are very, very few people who have ever received direct revelation from God – like roughly 40 who wrote the Bible and a few who were prophets or prophetesses that received revelation through dreams or visions or the equivalent. Of billions of people that have been born through history hardly any have been given direct revelation outside the Bible. Most of those that claim it will contradict the Bible. The Bible calls those people false prophets.

So did God send Mack this note that Mack received? The Bible doesn’t eliminate God’s ability to use the mail. But there are two things. One, this god will prove not to be the God of the Bible. Second, didn’t this god violate US federal law by tampering with the mail?

‘The Shack’, Corrupted innocence: Chapter 3

'The Shack' by William P. Young

This is a relatively plain chapter. Young does very little different. It seems to be mostly character development and plot enhancement. At one point Young is looking through Mack’s eyes at a sleeping Missy. He describes her as innocent.

Rightly understood there is nothing wrong with one person/human acknowledging the innocence of another. We should be excited when we see justice done in a courtroom, for instance. Those who are guilty of breaking human laws deserve punishment and those who have not should be declared innocent.

The same is not true in God’s courtroom. Romans 5:19 reads, “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous”. We can see that since Adam’s first sin none of us were innocent but all became sinners. Romans 3:12 reads, “All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one”. Not only were we born sinners but we continue in sin throughout our lives. Finally we have Isaiah 64:6b reads, “And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment”. Even our good works are stained by sin and unworthy before God.

This becomes important as Young continues into the book. He presses this innocence and even assumes it in important sections where God’s holiness and justice are questioned because Young assumes humanity’s innocence before God. We’re not though. We have a corrupted innocence. We are in no way innocent before God and therefore must depend on the obedience of Jesus Christ for the actual good works He did and surrender ourselves to Him, repenting of our sins and trusting in His death for sinners.

‘The Shack’, A false gospel: Chapter 2

'The Shack' by William P. Young

This chapter introduces us to Mack before his tragedy, a man struggling with his understanding of the gospel. He may not “know” that he has the gospel wrong but Young places a false gospel on these pages without qualification.

We can look first at the good aspect of this chapter – “Obviously, Nan’s nightly prayers were having an effect.” Though not as much as recommended in the Bible (Deuteronomy 6:7), Mack and Nan have a family that does pray and attempt understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, Mack is “reluctant” to worship God though he thought of himself as a rich man “in all the ways that mattered”. The family’s understanding of the Bible and Mack’s reluctant worship (even before his tragedy) seem to have been hampered by their understanding of the gospel, to which we now turn.

Explaining the gospel is a life-long venture. Exploring and understanding and relating to God in light of the gospel of Christ Jesus is what the Christian life is. So we should not expect an exhaustive explanation of the gospel in this chapter. We should, however, see where so many parts of the gospel are left out that it no longer remains the gospel but becomes a false gospel.

Mack retells the tale of the Princess of the Multnomah tribe. Young narrates after the fable that, “It had all the elements of a true redemption story, not unlike the story of Jesus that [Missy] knew so well”. Young never mentions the vast number of things that make the fable completely unlike the gospel, the story of Jesus. I’ll take this post to touch on some of them and treat two a little further.

First, Jesus was a man. Starting in Genesis the man is given the role of responsibility and leadership. As such Adam is held accountable for sin’s entrance into the world even though Eve sinned first (Romans 5:12, 19). And so Jesus Christ also had to be a man to take the role of responsibility and leadership to be our representative in righteousness, the opposite of sin. The Chief’s daughter was, obviously, a woman who underwent no special act to be the one of responsibility and leadership among her people. But Christ did undergo a special/miraculous act. Christ was incarnated, He put on humanity to be our representative. Second, because of Christ’s incarnation He was fully God and fully Man, which made Him the perfect mediator between God and Man. The princess held only her humanity. Third, God the Father asked God the Son to die a sacrificial death to redeem His people (Matthew 26:39, Philippians 2:5-8). The Chief nor the great spirit ask the princess to sacrifice herself. In fact, she decides for herself that she should be the sacrifice. Fourth, Jesus is the only Son of God not, like the princess, the only child left. Fifth, Jesus has saved us from our sin. Our sin comes both from Adam, as above in Romans 5, and our own thoughts, motivations, actions, etc. We deserve the spiritual death that is the just punishment of God’s wrath. The people of the princess have not done anything to deserve their current state of sickness. Sixth, they are not dead but only sick. We are spiritually dead from our sin (Ephesians 2:1-3). The people of the princess were only sick. Seventh, the princess is not sinless, which makes her unable to listen to her heart (Jeremiah 17:9) and a completely unworthy sacrifice. Jesus lived a sinless life so He could take the wrath of God for our sins (Hebrews 2:17, 4:15). Eighth, there is no resurrection from the dead for the princess. This event is essential, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 (see more below). Ninth, repentance and faith are required to be saved (Mark 1:15, Acts 16:29-31). No faith was required on the part of the people of the princess. Tenth, Jesus died to save His bride the church (Ephesians 5:25-27). The result of the princess’ death was that her betrothed and their tribes all lived. This is a message of universalism, everyone in the world being saved without respect to their relationship to the Savior (a relationship which Young seeks to make much of in the book). Eleventh, Mack later counsels Missy that God will not ask her to jump off a cliff. This is, of course, exactly what Jesus asks us to do – take up our cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

Two of these are most grievous, the supposed redemption and the absence of the resurrection. Without the Chief’s people being guilty of something and thus deserving their sickness, there is no redemption. They’re not redeemed from anything by the death of the princess. Though Young says it is a redemption story there is nothing the people need redeemed from. Apparently there is no wrong they have done for which they’re condemned. When Young states that this myth is a redemption story though it is not one, he highlights two things. One, he disregards our sins, the exact state from which we need saved. Two, he perverts the justice of God. God is not pictured as both just in His judgement against us and our justifier through Jesus Christ (Romans 3:26) but only as the conductor/commander of death.

The second of the most grievous two things is the lack of the essential piece, the resurrection. A pool forms where the princess dies. She doesn’t return to life. She doesn’t offer any hope that her people will not truly die. She doesn’t even rise to end all future sickness. But Jesus’ resurrection attests to His faithfulness, sinlessness, truthfulness, deity, and acts as our future hope. Mack later wavers concerning the truthfulness of the princess tale. Eventually he affirms that Jesus’ story is true and so the one of the princess is probably true too. The amazing difference in these truth claims is that Jesus’ is anchored by an amazing and historical fact: His resurrection. She remains dead. If there is no resurrection in the gospel then “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:19).

For application there are two points. One, we should be very diligent and consistent with our discussion of the Bible – who God is, what He has done, and what we should believe. Second, we must be especially zealous over the gospel. It is the power of our salvation from beginning to end (Romans 1:16).

‘The Shack’, Many small gods: Chapter 1

'The Shack' by William P. Young

We continue now with the good, the bad, and the application from The Shack. In this chapter we see Mack after his great tragedy and before his meeting with god. Young again writes well, conveying the listlessness with which Mack goes about his icy day.

Throughout this chapter there are references to many gods. There is a god of winter, Nature who grants rest by her intervention (notice the capitalization), the humbling powers of ice and gravity. Each of these are personal, a god, a personal ‘granter’, a humbler so they are more than just creative writing. Young attributes personal characteristics to things that never possess them. When Young does this we can see how Mack must see the world – controlled by these personal forces which are outside the control of God.

To be fair, Mack is in a desperate time after a great tragedy. His world seems to wallow in a mass of melancholy. And who of us has not been there? But this does not excuse Mack or ourselves. Poor understanding of and poor trust in God and His ways, whether by ignorance or neglect, is still sin.

In light of this chapter we can learn one of the most important lessons of application. The application is to practice/meditate on the goodness and sovereignty of God in all things, at all times, to all God’s elect. If we daily practice our faith in our Good God who is in control of all things (Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:11) then when tragedy strikes we will have a solid and practiced faith that God is doing good. When we fall on the ice and we split out heads open, what will we do? We will practice – we will acknowledge that God is good, that He is doing good by ordaining our fall and our bleeding; we will pray to God that we would learn what He is teaching, thank God for His Son Jesus Christ who saved us from eternal suffering, pray for humility to receive His discipline with thankfulness, and all such like things. And when real tragedy comes we will do that same, as God has taught us.

Random origen

“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” 1 Corinthians 14:33a

This passage is one I enjoy because it sorts out so much. Paul writes it in the midst of a discourse on spiritual gifts. The difference is that this statement is the proof to that which passed before it. God is a God of peace and order so the worship of God should also be peaceful and orderly. When doing an exposition of the passage we note the context, always. But this statement is not dependent on the context. We know this because Paul uses it as a proof. A proof cannot be dependent on what it proves.

Peace, here, is used in contrast to confusion. The Greek word translated confusion also carries the meanings of tumult and unquietness. God is orderly, not confused or disorderly.

This is in direct opposition to evolution’s theory of the more complex growing out of the less complex by way of random change. This is simply not the way God works. God is a God of peace, not tumult, not confusion, not randomness but order.

Yet evolution is what our children learn. Many schools, whether out of good will or ill, teach evolution. Then our children return home and act “randomly”, seek the “random”, even praise the “random” (“that’s so random”, “he’s so random”). Should we be surprised? Through their entire day the random-god is praised. Review the current cartoons and websites (www.homestarrunner.com). I was helping with the church’s youth group one Sunday and overheard normal girl chat about this guy and that guy. What caught my attention was that one guy was described as “so funny” because “he’s so random”. Now, don’t get me wrong, the unexpected can be funny but the nonsensical and purposeless lacks humor.

So when we continue to accept and endorse teachings like evolution and fail to teach the Christian God of order, we should not be surprised that our children imitate the god they know.