The Problem of Evil and Revelation September 29, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
Something that I have been pondering lately is (surprise) 2nd Temple Jewish Literature. This saw the rise of apocalyptic material. One of the things that apocalypse does is answer the question of suffering and evil, it was written through those suffering in the world. Which makes me wonder…why do we teach on the problem of suffering (i.e. my Sunday School class a few weeks back) from didactic instead of apocalyptic material. Wouldn’t it be interesting to use Revelation as the answer, as God will win. If nothing else, it shows that we are not alone in asking questions and, perhaps even better, that we can be creative in figuring out how to begin to answer difficult questions.
Knowledge of the Holy (Chapters 17 and 18) September 26, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
This week, we studied chapters 17 and 18 of Knowledge of the Holy, chapters on the justice and mercy of God. These are two characteristics that are many times put in opposition with each other, as if they are conflicting. As we have discussed before and as Tozer mentions in these chapters, God is a unity, so it is not that His attributes work in opposition with each other. In addition, in this chapter he points out that any attribute is a description of how God acts, not a description that then is applied to God.
What is justice? There are numerous examples of God being just in OT and NT. However, we often focus on his justice being punishment, but His justice is also in rewarding those who seek Him. Tozer defines justice as “moral equity” and that it works with judgment because it apply it to situations, which might work favorably or unfavorably. It is God doing what is right. It is the landowner in Matthew 20, when he gives people what he promised them. In Romans 3:21-26, we see that God’s justice is seen but it is seen through His mercy, in that in the cross there is justice and mercy.
Mercy we many times will define as “not getting what you deserve.” When you define it this way, it does seem in opposition to justice (getting what you deserve). However, Tozer points out what I think is correctly pointed out through Scripture, mercy is God’s compassion (Tozer calls it His active compassion). Depending on what translation you have of Exodus 34:6 and Psalm 140:8-9, it might read meryc or compassion. Ephesians 2:4-5 shows that God who is rich in mercy saves us. The calls to Jesus–have mercy on us! It is not that they should get what they don’t deserve, it is that they should be helped. Tozer says, “As judgment is God’s justice confronting moral inequity, so mercy is the goodness of God confronting human suffering and guilt.” The cross is mercy in that God helps those who cannot help themselves. We must remember that God is merciful if we want to experience His mercy. And just to remind ourselves, God is merciful thorughout both testaments of Scripture.
Therefore, justice and mercy can work together. How can we be just and mercy with the wrongs of the world today? Trying to get justice might actually be the most mercyiful things in some cases.
Headache Gone! September 23, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Uncategorized.add a comment
After a week, my big sinus headache is gone–yeah! Finally…so now I am feeling much better and can think again, just in time to do school work!
Knowledge of the Holy (Chapters 15 and 16) September 19, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
This week in our study of Knowledge of the Holy, I did something unexpected–I did not lead the discussion, but left that to my good friend Jonathan. I realized that this is something I should do more often–let other voices dominate the guiding of the discussion. If nothing else, it lets other sorts of questions be asked. Once again, trying to make sure that I show that I truly beleive in the plurality of ministry (thank you John Calvin!). Here is how my co-laboerer and brother-in-Christ lead our discussion of the faithfulness and goodness of God.
Before we directly talked about the faithfulness of God, we talkd about the unfaithfulness of humanity–what does that look like and who does that affect? We see unfaithfulness all around the world, from marriage to ministry to life in general, and it affects both the unfaithfuler and the unfaithfulee (I just made those up!). However, the faithfulness of humanity leads to the faithfulness of God as in 2 Timothy 2:11-13. This idea of faithfulness connects to other attributes (like immutability) as it shows that He remains faithful to who He is. Faithfuless is God keeping His Word, which means that He makes promises and fulfills them–willingly! He has chosen to be faithful (and good). When it seems like God might not be faithful to our eyes, we need to remember that, like in Narnia, God has a “deeper way” and that this way is tied to His character–nothing outside hinders Him! A worshipping heart sees this. How have we seen God’s faithfulness? It allows us to see it continuing into the future; we have steadfast hope. In moving to the goodness of God, we see that it is His kindness, benevolence, good will towards the world. Goodness isn’t being a pushover but having a “good nature” out of the “goodness of his heart.” We may take it for granted, we may not realize it all the time, but God is the definition of goodness (and the lack of the goodness is badness). Finally, though, we must remember that His goodness is not manuiplative; it is not based on our merit and we cannot manuiplate it. Though in some ways, the true goodness of God is Himself–knowing Him.
An Open Letter to Joel Osteen September 16, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Humor, Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
Dear Joel,
I have to apologize, I have often ripped your ministry over the past couple of years without listening to a whole sermon of yours or doing anything more than hearing or reading snippets of your ministry. I realized that this was wrong, so I listened to a sermon. It was called “Ancestral Blessings are Coming Your Way.” When I listened to this, I realized that my fears were true. This sermon did not seem to reflect a God-centered, Christ-centered sermon. Here are my problems.
- “Be Blessed”–The center of the message was that God wants us to be blessed. I would point to the fact that God called Abraham and Israel and all of us to be blessed in order to be a blessing. Our goal should not be to hoard blessings up to ourselves but to bless others. I did not catch that in the sermon; it was more about how “blessings” are coming my way and I should be excited about that.
- “Works vs. Grace”–the sermon was built upon the idea that if I am faithful to God, then God wil honor us. However, where is grace in there? What I see in the gospel is that we receive blessings even though we should not. You seem to maintain that everything that we get is because we have been faithful or our ancestors have been faithful. You mention a lot of texts about the OT that refer to the nation as a whole or were taken completely out of context (for example, “living in house you did not build” does not imply that they have ancestor blessings, but that God gives us what we do not deserve). People would probably deduce that God will do things for us if we are faithful, when in fact, God does not serve us, but we serve Him.
- “Faithfulness to God vs. Believing in Christ”–The only time I heard Christ mentioned was at the very end of the sermon. It all talked about being faithful to God, but I don’t think that faithfulness
- “Sin”–I do not think I ever heard that word. In fact, when you asked if people wanted to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, I would ask what Jesus would be saving us from. Is it sin? How would that factor into everything you talked about?
I am sure there are more but I will stop there. If I have misunderstood what you have said or your ideas, I would love to hear how you would explain them. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t when I have heard these things.
Sincerely,
Brian
Knowledge of the Holy (Chapters 13 and 14) September 12, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group, Spirituality.add a comment
So, this week in small group we looked at the ideas of the transcendence and the immanence of God. What do those mean? The starting point was pondering what Jesus means when he says that “God is Spirit.” Well, what does that mean? It means that God is wholly different from us. We are DOS and he is beyond Vista! While live bodily, he only lives spiritually. This is good to remember that God is different from us, he is beyond our understanding. He breaks our ability to comprehend; we must use our imagination but even that is enough. But while he is transcedent, he comes to us. He is Spirit also means that He is not confined to a single space. That no matter where we go, He fills the universe. He is different from the universe but he enters into the universe as well. We must not stop to consider that. Isaiah 40:12-31 is a great passage, where we see the “bigness” of God but also the “nearness” of Him. Let us live our lives, in fear of God (knowing that He is real) but also in friendship with Him because He is close by.
The Shack–my take September 9, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.3 comments
So I finished (finally) the much popular book, The Shack. Like most things that become popular among Christians, it has sparked quite a controversy in the Christian world. Many have panned the book, declaring it to be heretical. Others have remarked on how transformative the book was for their life. My goal in reading was to give it a fair shake, evaluate it, and be able to tell others what I think. I have read some of the reviews and I am a lot more friendly to the book as a whole–while I do not say it is all correct theology, I am not going to say as Driscoll said, “Don’t read it!” I am not Al Mohlerwho will dissect it and denounce it. Even if I viewed it as all heretical, reading it could be useful to help sharpen our understanding in many areas. Just like anything that we watch, read, or consume, we need to be Bereans and compare it to the word of God. So, I am going to put this review in parts–what I like, concerns that might be overblown, and concerns that are legitimate.
What I like:
· Narrative format
This book is a great reminder that truth can be communicated through narratives. Heck, its how the Bible does it so it would be biblical J Narratives stick with us and help us transform how we see the world. We need to have more narratives that intentionally present the world as the Bible sees it. Even if The Shack does not do that, it sparks that idea.
· Imagination
Christians often do not use their imagination. We like to have theories and doctrines, but we have to use our imagination a bit to understand doctrines, as they are beyond our reason. While the view of the Trinity is not perfect, it helps us rethink what it means for God to exist in three persons in relationship to Himself. I have no idea what that actually means or looks like, but this book helped me consider it more.
What people have critiqued in my mind too critically (see review at http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf):
· Subversive Nature
Some have said that this is subversive of the church, as it says that Mack has to “relearn” what he learned in seminary and has other statements directed against the traditional church. However, I did not find it to be more subversive than Tim Keller saying, “Religion is a problem” or other people who say that the church has issues. While it is not a pastor saying it, I did not find it to be overly subversive.
· Revelation
Some have said that this book has a low view of inspiration, that it invites us to look at places other than the Bible. However, I do not know if it stepped beyond some ideas of general revelation—that nature does reveal God (imperfectly of course). The idea of looking to the Bible for relationship, not just rules/principles might actually track along with the postconservative understanding of the text. While there might be an idea of “continuing revelation,” it is not necessarily beyond that of the normal ideas of the Pentecostal stream of the faith, which I disagree with but do not consider out and out “heresy.”
· God as “feminine”
Some are bothered because God is portrayed as female. They say that using an African-American personification of “Papa” flies in the face of Scripture that uses male terminology for God. What about Matthew 13:34, where Christ uses terminology of a female hen? God is not male or female; he is neither, but both reflect the image of God, so there are parts of it. And if you read the whole book, you might see how this is true of God in the book. Even when Papa is a female, the name is still Papa; He is portrayed as the Father.
· God as “images”
Some say that this breaks the second commandment, but I am not so sure. These images are not being worshiped. In many ways, I think they are more like symbols designed to communicate (like the Spirit as a dove). They are windows to help us (actually Mack) rethink our normal understanding of God. If Morgan Freeman can be God in Evan Almighty (which did not seem to be attacked), why can’t these persons be the Godhead, not in ontology (actuality) but in a way that communicates truths. I can see (image of God) truths about God in African-American women, etc.
· Non-Reformed view of Salvation
The book does not present a view of God’s sovereignty as articulated in the Reformed tradition. This is the tradition I stand in; I think that this tradition best understands Scripture. However, if you believe in free-will, I do not think you are an out and out heretic. I have questions for you…but I am not going to question your salvation.
· Non-Orthodox view of the Trinity
This is one that I am not sure on. As I might say, what is the orthodox understanding of the Trinity? What sort of picture conveys it? In some ways, it might be easier to try to work at pictures and then see how the pictures fall short. So does this picture. I do not believe in is modalist (one God in three forms) as they are three persons (the idea that the Father has the marks of the Son does not imply that He was incarnated as well, but that He suffered in the breaking of the perfect union. God is not a force—He is 3 persons. The lines might be blurred at times, but overall, I think it is a vision of the Trinity that can challenge us. Furthermore, I wonder if you could accuse our language of talking about God (is person really totally descriptive of Him?) as falling short? If so, is it then heretical? If we view heresy in terms of moving closer to the truth as opposed to being outside of the realm of acceptable belief, I do not see this as being heretical. Maybe inaccurate and misleading at times, but not heretical.
The statement that most bothered me from the book:
‘Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean…that all roads will lead to you?” “’Not at all,’ smiled Jesus…’Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you’” ‘(182).
This statement does not necessarily teach universal salvation or that all faiths are equally valid, but it can be taken that way. I do not know what the author was trying to say; I wish he would have been more clear because I think either viewpoint can take this statement to mean what they want.
I would agree with views that say that the book does not necessarily give a clear presentation of the gospel message, of creation, fall, and redemption. It focuses on forgiveness, not true salvation. That being said, I don’t know if this book as designed for people to learn the gospel, but for people who know it and are asking questions to continue to ask them; for people who have grown disillusioned to come back.
I didn’t touch on other quotes or concerns, as then it would have been really too long (if not already). But that is some of the major stuff I was thinking about. You might agree or disagree with my thoughts—if you do disagree, let me know so I can figure out if I am missing something. I want to dialogue about it, not nitpick it only in a negative, critical way. I think that is how grace will see this.
Should you read it? If you want to, I am not going to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do. But just as EVERYTHING you do, think about if it matches biblical truth, knowing what to affirm and reject.
Knowledge of Holy (Chapters 11 and 12) September 4, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
This week, in Bible study we looked at the wisdom of God and the omnipotence of God (power). As we study God and His person, we want to do so both vertically (how it affects our relationship with Him) and horizontally (how it affects our live and interaction with each other). Wisdom of God, we defined as being “His having the best goals and the best means to achieve those goals.” That is, God knows what is best and does what is best. We must acknowledge that His way of wisdom might be beyond us at times (1 Corinthians 1:18-31, Romans 11:33), as He is truly the “only wise God.” But yet he invites us to ask him for wisdom (James 1:15). We must fear Him to find wisdom (Proverbs 9:10); that is, wisdom comes from belief in Him. At times, we will not know why what He chooses is best, but we do know it. We must not expect everything to make sense; some incidents might be like Joseph, who sees why he was in Egypt, but others might be like Job, who nevers gets an answer.
As we consider that the wise God is omnipotent, we want to think of omnipotence in different categories than we might usually consider it. That is, we usually think of it as “God can do everything.” While Scripture points us to that (Luke 1:37; Mark 10:27; Jeremiah 32:17), we know that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) or sin (James 1:13)…and we don’t even want to talk about the “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift?” question. The key to consider omnipotence is in Isaiah 14:27, Job 42:2, Daniel 4:35–God is able to do His holy will, and nothing stops Him. He does not do things that are outside of His will; He has a plan and is able to do His plan. The wise God is able to do what He wants! What might this mean horizontally for us? We have power too, though not omnipotent. This power, though, is meant to be used in wisdom, to have God’s will be done.
So, we should trust God in the dark places of life, knowing that he knows best and is able to do what is best. But we also should order our lives with wisdom, so that we use our power wisely. For more on that, looks to Ephesians 5:15-17 and Colossians 4:5.
Knowledge of the Holy (chapters 9 and 10) September 2, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
This post is a bit late, but last week, we talked about the immutability and omniscience of God. Now, how do these doctrines fit together? And perhaps more importantly, what the heck is immutability (it means not changing, as in no mutations!). And why are these important for our lives? Well, when we consider that God does not change and that God does not learn, it should point us once again to turn to God in all of our troubles, as He will not change. There are passages that might seem to have God changing (Moses’ prayer on Mt. Sinai, Jonah and Nineveh, King Saul), but remember, those are situations where 1) the situation changes (people repent, intercede, etc.) and 2) where God changes for the “better.” That is, we do not have a God that loves us and then turns our backs on us, but a God who, yes, will punish sin but, more importantly, forgives us when we turn to him in repentance because of what Christ has done for us. Therefore, we can turn to him in confidence that he will forgive us.
But we look at God as the creator, as a unique one. He does not change or learn–but we do. Which begs the question, “How are we changing? What are we learning?” And when we think about that, the one who “knows all,” including Himself, is God alone. So as we learn and change, we must turn to the Him. Therefore, knowledge of His immutability and omniscience prompts us, yes, to trust in Him, but also, to learn from Him. Amen.
