Oprah and the Jealousy of God

In recent days and weeks, there has been a remarkable surge of discussion going on in cyberspace regarding Oprah Winfrey's recent attempts to clarify her own positions on spiritual matters, as for the last few months she has been faciliating a New Age, pantheistic (all is God), monistic (all is one) course in spirituality on her XM Sattelite radio program, directly from the book A Course in Miracles. You can get a feel for what's going on here.

Essentially what she and her friends are trying to teach others is the idea that there are endless different ways to get to "god", and that the key to true freedom here on earth is to rid oneself of any "closeminded" and exclusivistic spriitual thinking. Nothing is really new here.

Now there are serious problems with this kind of thinking. The idea that all religions lead to the same end (god, or non-existence, or reincarnation, etc.) leads to absurdity and complete uncertainty. If all roads truly led to god, it would be absolutely impossible to prove it, because you could not know what god is really like, which means you could not know for sure that he/she/it would agree with you, nor could you know which parts of which religions were actually true, which means that you could not ever say to anyone else that they are wrong (including those who would say that all roads do not lead to god). In short, if all roads truly led to god, you could not know it and you could not prove it.

I don't want to dwell on these issues however, as they are for another day. What I want to touch on relates to the thing that Oprah revealed was a primary reason she began to doubt true biblical Christianity; a question that I would imagine all kinds of people could relate to. That is: If God is so loving (1 John 4:8), then why is He so jealous (Deuteronomy 4:24)? Or to put it another way; If God was truly loving, He would not be jealous, therefore biblical Christianity cannot be completely true. If God were truly loving, He would not be jealous.

I imagine that many people wrestle with this issue. Perhaps you do.

But the response is actually quite simple. Carefully consider these wonderful words:

The saving love of God is God's commitment to do everything necessary to enthrall us with what is most deeply and durably satisfying, namely himself. Since we are sinners and have no right and no desire to be enthralled with God, therefore God's love enacted a plan of redemption to provide that right and that desire. The supreme demonstration of God's love was the sending of his Son to die for our sins and to rise again so that sinners might have the right to approach God and might have the pleasure of his presence forever.
(John Piper, God is the Gospel, p. 14)

You see, Oprah is right to say that her god is not a jealous god, for in fact it is not. Her god does not care about what you love, or what you live like, or what you think about it or anything else. Her god sits in oblivion; unconcerned, uninvolved, uninterested, but most importantly, unloving. Her god is unloving because it is not jealous. It is unloving because it could not care less about what you live like. It is unloving because it is uninterested in protecting us from actions that will hurt us. And it is unloving because it is not willing to do whatever is necessary to "enthrall us with what is most deeply and durably satisfying, namely himself." If I were not willing to protect the life of my children, pointing them to that which is most satisfying, I would not be a loving father. In the very same way, a god that is not jealous is a cruel, evil, weak, limp, unloving god. Make no mistake about it.

Hell's Best Kept Secret

I recently got this sermon on a C.D. as a gift and it is one of the best sermons I have ever heard on Personal Evangelism. I would encourage you all to listen to it by clicking the link above, and would love to hear your thoughts about it.

Jason

Book Review: Love and Respect

Every so often a book comes along that has the potential to revolutionize your life. Since it was published in 2004, many have strongly believed that Dr. Emerson Eggerichs’ book on marriage, Love and Respect, is just that book. I respectfully disagree.

The premise of this book is simple: “The wife can fulfill her need to be loved by giving her husband what he needs – respect.” (From the Introduction) Throughout the book Eggerichs points to what he deems, “The Crazy Cycle”, which is, “without love, she reacts, and without respect, he reacts.” So then, Eggerichs calls wives to respect their husbands, so that husbands will love them like they long to be loved, in return.

Let me lay out what I see to be the major strengths of this book.

Major Strengths:
1. The emphasis on a man's desire for respect. - I feel this is very true; men appreciate respect, especially from their wives. It is nice to see a book bring this to light, though it seems to be somewhat of a fad in psychological counseling today. Dr. Laura has even written a book on it.

2. The desire to root the premise in Scripture. - What I did notice and appreciate in this book was that the author did not quote a large group of proof texts, relatively speaking. It seemed that he really desired to continuously bring the reader back to these two specific passages (Ephesians 5:33 & 1 Peter 3:1-2), and even showed some of his exegesis in his references to these passages. I do appreciate that.

3. Emphasis on communication in a marriage. - Enough said.

4. The endnotes at the end of the book. - I feel some of these endnotes were very helpful. And there were even a few that had very helpful insights on biblical texts.

However, these strengths do not outweigh the book’s weaknesses. They are:

Major Weaknesses:
1. The use of psychological manipulation. - You can really see this everywhere. For example, p. 7, "How can I get my husband to love me as much as I love him?" This is the question that Eggerichs sets out to answer. This is manifested in the premise: "The wife can fulfill her need to be loved by giving her husband what he needs - respect." The weaknesses in this idea are fairly clear; sometimes it may not work; just because a wife gets what she wants does not mean that God has changed the heart of the husband; Scripture does not promise anywhere that the respect of the wife will produce the love of the husband; etc.

2. Putting the primary responsibility to act on the wife. Though I am confident that Dr. Eggerichs would agree that the husband is to be the spiritual leader of the home, it seems that he has catered his book to woman (probably knowing that men who are not loving their wives will not likely sit down with a book like this), putting the responsibility to act and lead in this unfortunate situation on wives. A more appropriate book (but certainly one that would not sell nearly like this one) might be one directed specifically at husbands, calling them to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

3. Weak use of Scripture. - I noticed several questionable applications of biblical texts, if not questionable interpretations. Eggerichs is obviously schooled in biblical interpretation, and I feel that his exegesis is fairly sound; however, his application is often quite weak. Everything is tied back to his premise, yet there is no real explanation how the primary text (Eph. 5:33) led him to this premise. Rather than simply focusing on the commands of Ephesians 5, and 1 Peter 3, the author instead uses the texts to "reveal" the "needs" of men and women, reading modern psychology all the way back into ancient texts. This is questionable at best.

4. The focus on symptoms, not on heart issues. - There is really no mention of sin throughout the book that I could find. Instead the author labels what are really sin issues, to be "natural reactions" as seen in "The Crazy Cycle" (p. 38). The author does not translate these "reactions" into biblical language, which is a characteristic of his integrationist approach to counseling (i.e. integrating Scripture with psychology instead of resting on Scripture alone). This leads to…

5. An integrationist approach to counseling. - The book is a Focus on the Family book, so that should give us some insight, but the emphasis on cause and effect in relationships (psychological manipulation) throughout the entire book really brings this approach to light. Again, just because a particular action is achieved (such as a husband loving his wife in a way that serves her felt needs), does not mean the heart has been changed by the Spirit of God. The integrationist approach here, as always, merely settles for changes in action, without necessarily achieving a change of heart.

So, all in all I would say that this book is one to use a good dose of biblical discernment when reading. Though there are some potentially helpful insights that the author gives, the majority of his insights are rooted in a psychological bent, rather than a biblical mind.

Ultimately, I see no need to keep this book around. It is a classic integrationist approach to marital counseling, which is not original whatsoever and therefore provides nothing indispensable to anyone. I don't think it needs to be burned, but I see no need for anyone to keep it on their bookshelf.

For a much more biblical perspective on marriage, Bryan Chapell’s Each for the Other, is well worth a read!

Homeschooling and Romans 14...

Just a couple days ago, Pulpit Magazine (the online blog of Grace Community Church, where John MacArthur preaches) put out a very reasonable, level headed and biblically minded post called "Home, Private, or Public School", where they argued this basic position:

Is it wrong to put your children in a public school? Not necessarily. Is it right to put your children only in Christian schools—or home-school them? Not necessarily. It is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, using biblical principles and prayerful wisdom to make a God-honoring choice. It involves knowing the Word, knowing the schools in your area, and knowing each of your children.

Now, I sincerely appreciate this position, because it acknowledges the complicated nature of this particular decision for parents, and because it encourages parents to make their decisions regarding the education of their children biblically and prayerfully before God, rather than simply resorting to their own opinions or the opinions of others (both in the Church and in the world). I celebrate this!

It is all too common for churches (and individual Christians for that matter) to either throw an extra-biblical mandate on people in "gray areas" (areas that do not have explicit biblical commands upon them) or to act as if decisions in those gray areas aren't worth serious discussion. Grace Church has done neither in this particular area. They have effectively upheld the importance of the decisions regarding the education of our children, and at the same time have challenged parents to make God-honoring decisions without putting man-derived mandates upon them. They should be applauded for offering that kind of instruction.

However, as I waded through the 80 plus comments that were given in response to this particular post (normally, they don't have more than 10 responses to a given post), I quickly became seriously disappointed with the way many of our siblings in Christ had received this good instruction. Rather than expressing appreciation for the skillfull instruction they had received, many folks decided rather to make their case for the approach to education that they consider the best approach. Rather than challenging one another to make these decisions prayerfully and biblically before God (which is the real issue here), many people decided to throw pot shots at one another and expose the "error" in each others thinking.

I was response #82. Here is what I wrote:

From one who has grown weary of exchanges like these…

Are we truly willing to accuse our siblings in Christ who have prayerfully and carefully decided before God to place their children in a public school that they are guilty of sin?

Are we truly willing to accuse our siblings in Christ who are striving to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord; who work hard to interact with their children over the ideas that they are taught at school, and work hard to show them what God has to say about those same things, and work hard to teach them how to think biblically about such ideas and how to respond to such ideas (if in fact they are in opposition with the Word of God) in a loving manner; that they are guilty of rebelling against God and are in need of repentance simply because their children spend time learning about certain things in a public school?

Are we truly willing to say that there is only one obedient and God-honoring option for educating one’s children, regardless of the situation, and that in no case is a parent ever free before God to consider using an outside source to help them educate their children in certain matters?

You see, if Grace’s position is correct, which one is hard pressed to disprove through proper interpretation and careful exegesis (stats and surveys will never cut it), then the only ones in this discussion who need to repent of their sin are those who would answer “yes” to these questions. This must be taken into consideration. Striving for “peace and mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19) is one thing; judging one another is something quite different. And in discussions like these, the latter seems to be much more common.

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (that is, encourage a brother or sister to do something not in faith).” Romans 14:10-13(parentheses mine)

Let us proceed with utmost caution, and let us love one another more than we love our own personal standards, to the glory of God alone!

What a perfect example of the things we discussed this past Tuesday. In this particular thread of discussion, the topic at hand quickly became a secondary issue, just like what we discussed on Tuesday. It is for that reason, and the fact that I really don't think commenting any further on Pulpit Mags blog is worth it, that I thought I would mention these things to you.

And lest I get 80 plus passionate comments (okay, lest I get 10 of them), let me just say that my point in this post is not to advocate a particular method of educating children, nor to encourage you to to do so prayerfully and biblically (that is for another day). My point here is simply to encourage us to be dilligent to apply what we learned 2 days ago.

Relevantly Irrelevant ! (Part 2)

There are many good things going on in the Evangelical world these days. I realize that the trend among pastors nowadays though is to overlook those good things and simply harp on the things that have gone wrong or are going wrong, but I'm in a good mood today, so I want to go against the flow if I may, at least to start things out.

I am never uninterested in the countless discussions going on today in Christian circles over the question of how to be relevant to our culture. I for one want to be relevant. I want for unbelievers to respect me and not simply write me off as a Bible thumping fundamentalist. I want unbelievers to see through my life that life in Christ is far better than life apart from Him. I want unbelievers to look at my life and be so intrigued by it that they would desire to know what the driving force behind it is. I want unbelievers to know that I care for them as people, and not simply as notches of success in my ministerial belt. I really do want to be relevant, and for that reason I actually think that these discussions about how to be relevant are good for us to have and to listen to.

However, I constantly find myself laughing at the way so many professing Christians today seem to define relevance, at least in the way that they present themselves. What many people mean by "relevance" today is nothing more than wearing black rimmed glasses, sporting a soul patch, and shopping at The Buckle, because after all, Christians are allowed to do those things too and people need to know that!

But is this really what it means to "become all things to all people" (1 Cor. 9:22)? Is the Apostle Paul really equating being relevant (a word he does not use in 1 Cor. 9, by the way) to being cool? Is Paul saying there in 1 Cor. 9, the ever so often quoted proof text for relevance defenders today, that in order to win the worldly ones around him he actually seeks to look just as worldly as they are? I just don't think so.

There is a very important difference between the way that the Apostle Paul discusses his desire & attempts to be relevant and the way many Christians discuss the issue of relevance today. In fact, I would venture to say that the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 9, are nearly the polar opposite of what many Christians today are doing in an attempt to "win some".

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is discussing all of the rights that he has chosen to give up in order to reach as many as possible with the Gospel. Don't miss that! Paul is talking about the way he sacrifices things (his "rights" specifically) in order to get a platform with people that might not otherwise listen to him. Listen to his words, "Though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them." (1 Cor. 9:19) Paul's attitude was this: "What privilege can I sacrifice, without becoming disobedient to Christ, in order to win those around me more effectively!"

This is so different from the way many people are defining relevance in our day. The attitude of so many of us is not "What rights can I give up, without becoming disobedient to Christ, in order to win those around me more effectively?", but "What liberties can I take advantage of, just because I can, to show people that Christians can be cool too?" It isn't hard to see the vast difference between those two attitudes.

The heart that seeks true biblical relevance does not ask, "What do I need to wear in order to be accepted by the world?" but, "What sacrifices can I make in order to reach people more effectively for Christ? What can I give up in order to help a person see Jesus Christ more clearly? hat can I throw to the side, in order to ensure that nothing in my life (including my sense of style) distracts a person from seeing the holiness of God and their own personal need for His forgiveness and cleansing offered in the Cross of Christ?" That is the attitude of true biblical relevance.

One of the great problems with our contemporary definition of relevance is that it doesn't tend to lead us to become all things to all people, but instead leads us to become only like those whom we desire to reach. The only people who might be impressed with you as a Christian for wearing black rimmed glasses, sporting a soul patch, and shopping at The Buckle, is an unbeliever who wears black rimmed glasses, sports a soul patch, and shops at The Buckle (even though if you are truly seeking to be relevant in the biblical sense, they probably wouldn't care to begin with), but your 80 year old neighbor who is dying of heart failure and has a grapefruit sized aneurysm in his stomach isn't going to care in the least. So, how are we going to be relevant to him?

Books I Read in 2007

Last year I set as a goal to read a book every week, so that at the end of 2007 I would have read over 50 books. Now...in all honesty, I have to say that before last year, I had not read (front to back, that is) any more than probably 6 or 7 books a year, so a book a week really was a big goal for me.

Sad news...I didn't make it. :( However, I think I did pretty good. Here's a list of most of the ones I read. Perhaps this will lead you to something to read in 2008!

Assured by God Edited by Burk Parsons
The Book on Leadership by John MacArthur
Counseling: How to Counsel Biblically by The Master’s College Faculty
50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper
Fools Gold by The Master’s Seminary Faculty
Four Views on Eternal Security Edited by Gundry
The Future of Justification by John Piper
Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hays
Growing Up Christian by Karl Grausten
The Heart of Evangelism by Jerram Barrs
Humility: True Greatness by C.J. Mahaney
Knowing God by J.I. Packer
Living the Cross Centered Life by C.J. Mahaney
The Master’s Plan for the Church by John MacArthur
A Quest for More by Paul David Tripp
Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life by Don Whitney
The Supremacy of Christ in a Post-Modern World by Piper, Baucham, Wells, Driscoll, Carson
Teaching to Observe by Jay Adams
Think Biblically by The Master’s College Faculty
A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams
Thoughts for Young Men by J.C. Ryle
Trusting God by Jerry Bridges
What Jesus Demands from the World by John Piper
When People are Big and God is Small by Ed Welch
When the Darkness Will Not Lift by John Piper
The Word of God in English by Philip Graham Ryken

I'd recommend all of them!

The Death of the Grown Up!

A book review well worth reading!