faith for faith

Before we can rightly understand The Shack, it is important to understand the book within its literary framework. The book does technically fall within the genre that is commonly labeled “Christian fiction,” and therefore does, to an extent, carry with it certain literary implications. For example, being fictional, after having read the book, we do not expect to stumble upon the main character, Mack, when we visit the northwestern part of America. Also, we, to a certain extent, suspend our disbelief while reading the book, if only to help us endure the book to the end.

The Author and the Speaker
That said, more important than the genre into which The Shack falls is understanding how the author, William Young, sets up his work to be understood and how he desires it to be read. In the foreword to the book, we are given these parameters. The speaker introduces himself as the narrator of Mack’s story, a story that, according to him, invites skepticism for, “Who wouldn’t be skeptical when a man claims to have spent an entire weekend with God, in a shack no less?” (p. 9). The speaker in his foreword of Mack’s story, conveys to the reader his own supposed reluctance in believing certain aspects of Mack’s story, but, because of the character of Mack, gives Mack the benefit of the doubt.

Read more…

For those who are yet acquainted with The Shack, The Shack is a fictitious, Christian novel written by author William Paul Young. The Shack has, in its short time on the market, garnered for itself such accolades as being listed among the New York Times Best Sellers, and has been endorsed by such popularly reputable, Christian persons as singer Michael W. Smith and author and translator of the version of the Bible known as the The Message Eugene Peterson. The Shack has been raved about by both Christians and non-Christians and by theologians and lay-persons, and has such potential, according to Peterson, “to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

However, such attention has not come without its scrutiny. In spite of The Shack’s popular acceptance due to that what Young claims to be “a God thing,” many critics have risen up against the book, primarily from those whom align themselves with those who are commonly labeled as “fundamentalists” or “conservative evangelicals.” These who have risen against Young’s work do so on the basis of the God who is portrayed in the book. To these, the God in the book and the book’s depiction of the Christian doctrine of the trinity is unorthodox and even heretical. To these, Young’s novel has crossed the seemingly unbreakable and elastic line which has been lain for the genre known as “Christian fiction.”

Read more…

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Rm. 11:28-32).

[Warning: Post is at present unedited] This passage of Scripture is perhaps one of the most difficult passages in Romans, perhaps in all of Scripture, to grasp. It is so because of the language that is used in it– language that is complicated by our natural tendency to assign strict definitions to words that do not in themselves demand strict definitions. In this particular passage, the word of which I am speaking is the word that is translated “election” in v. 11:28, which I shall deal with in short order.

First, as always, we must understand the context in which this passage is spoken. As has been so throughout Romans 11, Paul is speaking of two groups of people–the Jews and the Gentiles. And because of God’s good wisdom and pleasure, he has decreed that salvation would only come to Gentiles if the Jews on the whole (less the remnant) would reject the Messiah. This purpose of the Lord is summed up in the apostle’s final statement in Romans 11 concerning the matter, viz. “For God has consigned all [both Jews and Gentiles] to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.” This is a reiteration of what the apostle has declared earlier in the epistle, viz. “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rm. 3:9). For what reason? “So that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (v. 3:19). Therefore, just as the law has stopped the mouths of the whole world (for they have no justification in themselves), so too this section is designed to stop our self-righteous mouths and declare what the apostle declares at the conclusion of this treatise: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! etc.” (vv. 11:33-36).

Read more…

This final section of Romans 11 beginning in v. 25 is in many ways a solidification of what the apostle has been saying throughout the chapter, viz. “A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (v. 11:25b) We know this, first, because this claim is nothing new to Paul’s discourse, for the section that precedes it contains in it the picture of Jewish branches being broken off of the natural olive tree for the sake of making room for the wild, Gentile branches that were to be grafted in to it (cf. vv. 11:17-24). We know this also because of how Paul introduces this section, viz. “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers, etc.” (v. 11:25a). In other words, the apostle reiterates this because he especially wants Gentiles to understand this mystery so that they might not be wise by their own estimations, or, perhaps synonymously, so that they would not be arrogant toward the Jewish branches that were broken off (cf. v. 11:18).

Also part of what the apostle wishes the Gentiles to understand is that it is “in this way [i.e. by the present partial hardening of Israel] that all Israel will be saved” (v. 11:26). However, in spite of the apostle’s wish for clear understanding concerning this matter, at least a couple of interpretations have come from this statement. Some have interpreted the apostle’s meaning in this verse to be this: In this way, all of spiritual Israel will be saved, i.e. an Israel comprised of both Gentiles who were grafted in and the remnant of Israel that remained. This interpretation is not too much of a leap, for it acknowledges that all who are grafted into the root of the Promise, whether Jew or Gentile, are in some way a part of the Israel of God (cf. Rm. 9:6; Gal. 6:16).

Read more…

This is a post that I have meaning to write since the launch of the new site, but, for various reasons (few of which are good), I have waited till now to explain the reasons for the name of this site. And though I am sure there will be the usual naysayers who will think that “faithforfaith.org” was the only available address left at the time to replace the difficult-for-our-English-speaking-brethren “xpistou.com,” I hope that through this post you might see the significance behind the name.

The phrase, “faith for faith,” is taken directly from the translation of Rm. 1:17 by the English Standard Version, expressly, “For in it [that is, the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith.” I say, “translation,” but I mean more “interpretation” for, though the literal interpretation of the passage is “faith to faith,” I am thinking (though I am unsure of this) that the translators of the ESV are picking up on part of what the apostle is doing with this phrase, namely using it as an inclusio to bracket with Rm. 3:21, 22 the section of the epistle from Rm. 1:18-3:20. [An "inclusio," is a literary device used to set apart a particular section of literature, bracketing it with common phrases.]

Read more…

Great periods in history are defined by great struggles. Early in the history of the church, there was the infamous struggle for the doctrine of the trinity against the heresy of Arius who, with his followers, denied the full deity of Christ. This struggle resulted in the church’s uniform stance against the heresy and in the composition of the still recited Nicene Creed of 381 A.D. A little over a millennium later, after hundreds of years of false teachings perpetuated by wicked men and the ignorance of the masses in Europe, the Reformation erupted, regaining for the Faith such pivotal doctrines as “justification by faith alone apart from works” and “the priesthood of all saints.”

Today, we find the church in turmoil yet again. All around us, false teachings such as the prosperity gospel and fundamental doctrinal misunderstandings such as that of nature of the trinity (as revealed by the popularity of The Shack) are being propagated throughout the American church. Amid this, we do find the American church struggling with issues facing it, but what issues is it struggling with? Is it the sacrificial and life-demanding nature of the Gospel? Is it the orthodox understanding of God as trinity? Is it the great doctrine of justification by faith alone which we have somehow lost again? No, our “great” struggles in the American church today are concerning the type of music that is being played in our worship services, the buildings we build to house those services, and whether or not Joe Schmoe is drinking a beer while he is cooking a hamburger on his grill. We are so consumed with making sure that Frank is tithing his gross income rather than his taxed income that we have neglected everything that is weighty concerning the Faith which are forefathers fought for with their blood. And because of our neglect we shall be remembered (if we are remembered at all) as the generation that had much potential and resources (e.g. freedom, money, etc.) and yet did nothing with them. Just a thought.

In honor of James & Elizabeth Cooper and Paul & Meredith Bradley
who, by God’s grace, will be married tomorrow.

Marriage is indeed a gift from God. For marriage, from its consummation in the Garden, was created to be a shadow of the depths of the Messiah’s love toward his elect and of his headship over her. The depths of Christ’s love was demonstrated in that while his bride was yet comprised of sinners, Christ put forth his figurative heel to be bruised so that he might by that act crush the head of the Adversary for the sake of the church’s lawless deeds and for her righteousness (cf. Rm. 5:8; Gen. 3:15; Is. 53:12). Likewise, marriage was created to be a picture of the oneness that Christ shares with his bride the Church. Just as the church is one with Christ through her submission in love to him who is her Head, so too in marriage, when a wife willingly submits to her husband and to his God-ordained headship, a household that was once comprised of multiple wills becomes one. These realities, among many others, make marriage a holy bond that should never be entered into lightly nor abandoned for the sake of personal preferences or conveniences. For marriage is never merely about mere persons, nor is it about one man and one woman, but it is always about God and his faithfulness to his people whom he foreknew. Just a thought. Congratulations, y’all!

The religious tendency for some to abstain from the consumption of alcohol is not a new thing and has been done rightly by some (e.g. John the Baptist who vowed not to drink among other things) and wrongly by others (e.g. the Pharisees who did so for the praise of men). And whenever abstinence from alcohol is rightly done, it is always done as a personal decision and not as a corporate demand. Nowadays, however, there is among many Christian circles a corporate demand for alcohol abstinence, and there are seemingly incessant teachings that demonize its use and vilify its user. And those who concoct such doctrines on alcohol and its use, do, like so many other teachers of the church do today, teach their particular personal doctrines without Scriptural warrant and without understanding their doctrine’s ramifications. In the case of the demonizing of alcohol, there are logical ramifications for it regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. First, those who teach against the use of alcohol say that either the consumption of alcohol is always a sin or that it is always unwise, and they deem it so by their own testimony and by their violent demands for its abstinence. Second, it is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ both drank alcohol (cf. Mt. 11:19) and created alcohol miraculously to be consumed by others (cf. Jn. 2). Third, therefore, since (in spite of lies to the contrary: read further) alcohol was not a necessary evil for the sake of the safe consumption of water, and since Jesus Christ chose both to drink alcohol and to distribute it when he could have chosen not to, Jesus Christ therefore was in the least unwise and at the most a sinner, both of which declare him to be imperfect and therefore demonstrate that he is not God. Just a thought.

If you, like me, have grown up a Baptist and have enjoyed the terrible precision with which the ordinance of baptism has been carried out by Baptists, here is for you a bit of food for thought. Ponder for a moment upon that which you have heard from most Baptists regarding baptism: it must be done by immersion, it must be done by a legitimate Baptist church and pastor, it must be done without one holding one’s nose for that would taint the symbolism of death (no joke, I heard that one from a professor last week), etc. Now ponder upon that which you have heard concerning the other ordinance given by our Lord–communion. How is it practiced? Is it practiced with the same precision that baptism is practiced with? Do we commune with each other and the Lord around a real table or as a meal (for it is called the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper)? Do we with our hands break the bread as we quote Christ’s words, “This is my body which is broken for you”? Do we drink with the broken bread the wine which is designed to call to remembrance the power that is in Christ’s blood and which is to lift our thoughts to the new wine that shall be served at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? No, we do not. We with our precision on one ordinance and our neglect of the other show ourselves to be ignorant and careless in the least and Pharisees and hypocrites at the most. Just a thought.

Now that school is out for me, I am excited to be able to get back to the figurative notepad and write more about the things that I believe matter in life, which unfortunately does not include the hand with which one passes a “communion tray” or what a pastor does with his remaining vacation time when he ditches his church for another church among several other things. In this vein, I intend to begin a series starting this week, entitled, “Just a Thought,” which shall consist of several small blog posts written by yours truly (and whomever else whose fancy is tickled by the opportunity) that are designed to make one think outside of his cultural and religious box and to ask the all important question, “Why?” None of these posts shall be treatises by any stretch of the imagination, but I hope that they will inspire you, first, to think about the subject that is being addressed in a way that you might not have thought about that particular subject before and, second, to encourage you to begin to ask questions yourself and to seek for answers that are not bound solely in culture and tradition. I know that many, particularly those in the church, are scared at the thought of people asking questions and thinking for themselves, but I personally delight in the thought and think that these things when guided and bound by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit will be a very healthy practice for the church. I hope that you will be encouraged in the coming weeks and that your encouragement will spill over into your churches. Soli Deo gloria.