Some Thoughts On Rob Bell’s “Love Wins”
I was curious, so I checked. It’s number one in Amazon’s “Religion and Spirituality” section and number three in Amazon’s overall list of the top 100 books. To say Rob Bell’s newest opus, Love Wins, has made a splash is like saying our recent recession was an economic hiccup. Both are understated. Because of its meteoric rise to the top of national book sales, the pastors at Concordia feel it is important to address what Rob teaches in this book. Here is what you need to know upfront: Concordia’s pastors do not believe that Love Wins presents true biblical or Christ-centered doctrine. In fact, we believe it presents false doctrine that is dangerous and confusing, leading people away from Christ rather than toward Him. If this is all you want or need to know, there is no need to read the balance of this blog. If you want to know why we believe this book presents false doctrine, read on.
The blogs and reviews of Rob’s new book are legion, and so my goal in this blog is not to try to break through the cacophony of clamor surrounding the book’s release. That’s a far too ambitious – and, I might add, unrealistic – goal. But neither do I intend my review to simply be another voice added to the many shouts either celebrating or decrying Rob’s book. Instead, my review is more of a personal sort. I am a pastor. And already, I am receiving questions from people I know and love about Rob’s book. And I am concerned. I am concerned about Rob. I remember him in his earlier years. To this day, I have never heard a finer sermon on Leviticus 16 than the one he preached. And the picture he painted of Ephesus, the Roman emperor Domitian, and John’s Revelation still grips me – and gives me hope – every time I think about it. In fact, I still have a copy of that sermon…on cassette tape! I’m having a hard time understanding what happened to Rob theologically. I am concerned about him. But I am also concerned about the people with whom I am talking. The people who are questioning. The people who are confused. The people who are wondering, “Is this book true?” If this is you, then I mean this blog for you. And though my words may be pointed, they are not meant to be vicious. Rather, they are written in love and a concern for the truth, for “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). And I believe that, finally, the truth will carry the day. For I, like Rob Bell, believe that love wins.
Deconstructing theology is dangerous business. And yet, it’s something people – especially so-called “postmodern” thinkers – love to do. After all, it’s fun to pile on top of certain theological presuppositions and assertions and expose the discontinuities in them, especially if these presuppositions and assertions are widely regarded as traditional and orthodox. And it is this is this deconstructionist method that Rob employs in Love Wins. Consider this quote:
Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.
If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we could contact child protective services immediately.
If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether a being like this could ever be trusted, let alone be good. (pages 173-174)
The logic seems, well, logical enough. If God loves us and wants salvation for us, how could He abandon his pursuit of us upon our deaths and consign us to eternal torment? That’s not a loving God! Therefore, goes Rob’s argument, God must allow people the opportunity to repent (though he never uses the word) even, perhaps, after death. Or at least that’s what he tantalizingly infers!
But let’s apply Rob’s same deconstructionist enterprise to his own argument. Rob solves the difficulty of the God who pursues us in the life and judges us in the next by appealing to God’s generous love – a love generous enough to allow for our free will, now on earth and then in eternity:
To reject God’s grace, to turn from God’s love, to resist God’s telling, will lead to misery. It is a form of punishment, all on its own.
This is an important distinction, because in talking about what God is like, we cannot avoid the realities of God’s very essence, which is love. It can be resisted and rejected and denied and avoided, and that will bring another reality. Now and then.
We are that free. (page 176)
So, Rob says I am free – free to “trust God’s retelling of my story” (page 173), as he puts it, and free to reject it. And not only am I free to trust and reject now on earth, but “now and then,” even into eternity. On the one hand, this is quite an enticing prospect because it allows me to trust in God’s retelling of my story even after I die. So if I mess it up here, I need not worry. I get another shot at trusting God on the flipside. It is important to note that Rob’s concern here is fundamentally a therapeutic utilitarianism. The kind of God who would do something as psychologically stressful as consigning people to an eternal hell simply won’t work! Indeed, Rob states this explicitly: “This is the problem with some Gods – you don’t know if they’re good, so why tell others a story that isn’t working for you” (page 181)? The problem is that Rob’s version of God and the gospel doesn’t work either! After all, what happens if I mess up on the flipside? What happens if I trust God’s retelling of my story in this age, but then use the generous freedom that Rob claims love requires to reject God’s retelling of my story in the age to come? Do I slip the surly bonds of heaven and wind up in a hell of my own making? And what if I trust in God’s retelling again? Is it back to heavenly bliss? And then what if I reject it…again? And then trust it…again? Am I stuck in a vicious volley between heaven and hell for all eternity? That certainly doesn’t sound very “heavenly.” In fact, that sounds like what I struggle with right now! That sounds like Paul’s exposition on every Christian’s age old struggle: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). Where’s the hope in that?
The freedom that love brings is only good if it is exercised with the sovereign prerogative that God has. In other words, love without God’s sovereign prerogative is impotent. It cannot do what it desires. It cannot, to use Rob’s book title, “win.” And indeed, love that allows this kind of freedom isn’t even really love. For it simply allows us to do what we please. Who actually loves like this – even here, even now? Love demands that when you see a child chasing his ball onto the interstate, you curb his freedom and tug him back. Love demands that heaven is an age when we are not only free to live with God, but have also been tugged, or, more biblically, “chosen” by God (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14). Love and freedom are not synonymous nor are they inextricable concomitants of each other. That is why God does away with people who persistently demand their freedom. For they cannot demand their freedom to God without demanding their freedom from God. These are the people who go to hell.
To allow me the eternal freedom to trust or reject God’s retelling of my story is only to allow me the eternal opportunity to make myself unspeakably miserable. And I’m not sure that’s a good opportunity. Because I already know what I’d choose…again and again and again. For I’m not truly free. I’m a slave to sin. And so I will always choose wrongly. As the Reformers put it, “We are unable to stop sinning.” I will always fall for the illusion that freedom from God presents rather than the joy that freedom in Christ brings. This is why God coopted my slavery to sin and set me free, only to make me a slave again, this time to righteousness – not out of some sort of sinister divinely wrought determinism, but for the sake of Christ: “Having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:18). This is the good news – that God does not leave things up to us. No, He loves us far too much to do that. And so He conquers sin, death, and the devil, and gives us His righteousness, apart from and in spite of our terrible choices.
Whatever so-called “problems” and questions Rob Bell may try to solve and answer in his book, he only succeeds in creating more problems and begging more questions. Not only that, but he finally replaces the good news with something that is neither good, for it leaves us in an eternal state of struggling against our own wills, nor is it news, for this struggle is much older than any twenty-four news cycle. So, whatever supposed “problems” my “traditional” story of the gospel may have (which I am not convinced there are problems, just paradoxes), this I know: When it comes to a love that is broad enough to allow me my own, dangerous freedom, “the good news is better than that” (page 191).
ABC Extra – Jesus Isn’t Gentle (At Least Not All The Time)
Even if you’ve never specifically articulated it, you have at least a general impression of Jesus. “Jesus is loving.” “Jesus was a good man.” “Jesus accepts all people no matter where they’re from or what they’ve done.” These are but a few of the most common impressions of Jesus. Even our hymnody seems to endorse these types of impressions. As a child, I learned to sing: “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, look upon a little child. Pity my simplicity, suffer me to come to Thee.” Yep, this is Jesus: He’s meek and mild.
As I’ve grown older and have spent more time reading the Scriptures, the impression of Jesus as meek and mild that I had as a child has been challenged. More often than not, in the Scriptures, Jesus doesn’t seem all that meek and mild. In fact, in some instances, Jesus doesn’t even seem nice! Indeed, we encountered one of these instances in this past weekend’s ABC.
In Mark 4:1-20, Jesus shares with His disciples what I like to call “The Parable of the Parable.” He tells His disciples a parable which describes what happens when He tells a parable! “A farmer goes out to sow some seed,” Jesus begins. “Some falls on a hard path, some falls on rocky soil, and some lands in the nearby thorn bushes. And none of these seeds last. They either do not sprout at all or they sprout and quickly wither. But there is some seed that falls on soft soil. And this seed germinates and grows up to be healthy, full, and whole.” As I mentioned, this parable describes what happens when Jesus tells a parable! There are some people who out and out reject His teaching while others get carried away by the rocks and thorny trials of this world. Some, however, not only hear and understand Jesus’ parables, but believe them. They are the soft soiled ones who take Jesus’ parables to heart.
Sadly, Jesus warns that many will not take His parables to heart: “To those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven’” (Mark 4:11-12). These are some biting words! Jesus says that to those on the outside, He intentionally speaks in coded parables, lest these outsiders actually understand Jesus’ message and believe in His mission! This certainly doesn’t sound nice. This doesn’t sound like a gentle Jesus, meek and mild!
In His words, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10, where God gives the prophet a similar mission of veiling God’s Word and message, lest people understand and believe: “Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” There is no ambiguity in God’s commission to Isaiah. Isaiah is to specifically and deliberately “make the heart of the people calloused.” That is, he is to turn people away from God. What a strange – and harsh – mission for a prophet!
The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century BC, translates Isaiah 6:9-10 like this: “You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving. This people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.” Take careful note of the difference between the two versions. In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 6, Isaiah is specifically charged with hardening the hearts of the people. But in the Greek translation of this text, the hearts of the people are already calloused long before Isaiah begins his ministry. So which one is it? Is it Isaiah who callousing the hearts of the people? Or do the people who hear Isaiah come with already calloused hearts, ready to reject his message?
Actually, it’s both. Long before Isaiah arrives on the scene, the people of Israel have been busy callousing their hearts through their rebellion and carousing. Isaiah paints a bleak picture of Israel’s spiritual condition in his opening chapter: “Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on Him” (Isaiah 1:4). Israel is already calloused. Thus, Isaiah is called only to callous hearts through his preaching which are have already been calloused by sin. This, then, is God’s warning to sinners: “If you callous your hearts by sin, I will callous your hearts in judgment of that sin.”
This, therefore, is finally what Jesus is doing in His parables. He speaks of hiding the meaning of His parables from “those on the outside” not because He hates these people or wants to see them consigned to damnation, but because they have already chosen to be on the outside, apart from Jesus. And so now, Jesus is simply giving these sinners what they want – what they demand. He is callousing their hearts through His parables.
The portrait of Jesus as purely meek and mild is surely inaccurate. In Jesus’ “Parable of the Parable,” we learn that Jesus most certainly allows people to fall under the judgment they deserve and desire. And yet, this is not Jesus’ final will. His will is that these people would indeed “turn and be forgiven,” even though He knows that some will not.
This, then, is Jesus’ invitation to you: Do not be calloused! By the Spirit’s strength, instead, be soft soil. Have a tender heart! Receive and believe God’s Word…and watch it grow in you – even unto salvation.
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
ABC Extra – So Many Translations, So Little Time
This past weekend, we reflected further on the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture in part two of our series “Inspire!” In an effort to better understand the Bible we read, in ABC, I talked about some of the different philosophies which undergird different Bible translations. I identified three different major types of translational philosophies:
- Word-for-word translations seek to translate the ancient Hebrew and Greek of the biblical text word-for-word into English as far as possible. They also try to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word consistently throughout the Scriptures, even when the context of a given verse might encourage a different translation of that word for the sake of style and ease of reading. Indeed, word-for-word translations can often read clumsily since Greek and Hebrew syntax and sentence structure can vary widely from English syntax and sentence structure.
- Thought-for-thought translations seek to take phrases or even sentences from the Hebrew and Greek biblical text and translate them according to the intent of the biblical authors using smooth, readable English. This is helpful for understanding, but can also lead to misunderstandings because sometimes the biblical syntax, no matter how convoluted and confusing it may appear, is important to understanding the argument of a biblical writer.
- Paraphrases consult other English translations of the Bible, along with some Greek and Hebrew texts as well, and then they paraphrase these other translations into contemporary, readable English. Paraphrases are dangerous because they often explicitly, and sometimes even recklessly, reflect the theological biases of their paraphrasers.
With this brief review of translational philosophies in mind, I wanted to offer a couple of additional thoughts with regard to translating Scripture.
First, it is important to note that Bible translating is more of an art than a science. Oftentimes, people will ask me what the best translation of the Bible is. The fact of the matter is, there is no one translation that I can recommend wholeheartedly as the “best” because, finally, Bible translating is an art! This means that there are some translations of the NIV that I prefer while, in other places, I prefer an ESV or an NASB rendering. In a couple of instances, the old KJV still carries the day for me! This is why, rather than simply recommending a single translation, I encourage people to compare several translations, giving the benefit of the doubt to the word-for-word translations over the thought-for-thought ones, and then consulting a commentary to shed further light on the text.
Second, it is important to note that there is no such thing as a “literal” translation of the Bible. Whether it is a word-for-word or a thought-for-thought translation, every translation involves some level of translator interpretation, especially when an ancient biblical text is especially ambiguous or when its idioms are unintelligible to the modern reader. The example I gave in ABC last weekend comes from Acts 20:37 where, after Paul says his farewell to his beloved Ephesian congregation, and with much weeping and sadness, the Ephesians, according to a word-for-word translation of the Greek, “were throwing themselves upon the neck of Paul.” Whoa! I know the Ephesians were sad to see Paul leave, but they didn’t have to try to break his neck! But this misunderstands the idiom. Even the NASB, considered by many to be the most faithful word-for-word translation available, translates this verse, “They embraced Paul.” And indeed, this is an appropriate translation. For even if the NASB does not translate woodenly the ancient idiom, it does faithfully reflect the author’s intent in using the idiom. Thus, to find a “literal” translation is neither possible nor is it always necessarily helpful.
Finally, I want to say a word about the use of inclusive language in many of today’s more recent translations. There is a move afoot to replace traditional translations of words like “brothers” or “men” with more gender inclusive language like “brothers and sisters” and “people.” Though this is certainly fine in some places (e.g., Matthew 5:19 in NIV 2011: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” rather than in NIV 1984: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”) it is dangerous in others. One prime example comes in Psalm 8:4-6. Consider the translation of NIV 1984:
What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; You put everything under his feet.
Here the Psalmist extols how God has made humankind the crowing glory of His creation and how He has given them dominion over the earth. Notice that the Psalmist describes humankind collectively using the masculine singular pronouns “him” and “his” (see italics above). In NIV 2011, because the Psalmist is referring to humankind collectively, the translators opted for the more generic plural pronouns “them” and “their.” Two problems arise with this translation. First, the Hebrew of the Psalm employs masculine singular pronouns. Thus, it may behoove us to translate the pronouns as singular collectives since that is the way the Psalmist wrote his Psalm! Second, the preacher of Hebrews picks up on the masculine singular pronouns of this Psalm and applies these pronouns to Jesus:
There is a place where someone has testified: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:5-9)
Thus, the preacher of Hebrews sees this Psalm as referring not only to humankind generally, but also to Jesus singularly! The Psalmist, writing some 1,000 years before Christ, prophecies concerning Christ! To discard the masculine singular pronouns, then, in favor of more generic plural inclusive pronouns, obscures the Messianic character of this Psalm. And that is a tragedy. For Christ is the center of the Scriptures. Thus, I tend to caution people against translations that commit themselves to inclusive language at the expense of Greek and Hebrew grammar and syntax.
So where does all this leave us? To use a phrase coined by President Reagan, we should “trust, but verify.” I advise people, with few exceptions, to generally trust the translations they read and not worry about missing a huge theological theme because of a faulty translation. Reading any major translation, you will still discover the gospel that Christ has come to die on a cross in your place for your sins apart from anything you do. No major doctrine of Christianity is compromised by any major translation. However, I still encourage people to verify confusing or disputed passages by consulting other translations, commentaries, and their pastor. This can help bring clarity and orthodoxy to some sticky passages.
So get to reading! The people have God have spent a lot of time translating the Word of God. And they’ve translated it so that the Word of God can be read and believed by you.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Krueger’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Where You Begin and Where You End
I have often said, when teaching in various settings, “Where you begin is where you end.” This is my axiomatic, though admittedly somewhat simplistic, way of expressing the truth that all of us come to a situation, a problem, or a challenge with our own preconceived notions and biases. These preconceived notions and biases, in turn, inevitably color the conclusions we draw and the solutions we formulate. This is especially true when it comes to working with the text of Scripture. If you approach the Bible with a stance of pessimism and incredulity, what you find will be appropriately pessimistic and incredulous. Conversely, if you approach the Bible with a stance of awe and a desire to “give the Bible the benefit of the doubt,” as it were, the conclusions you draw will strengthen your faith soothe your troubled soul. It is no secret that I am in the latter camp of how I approach Holy Scripture. In light of my ABC yesterday on the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, I thought that this quote from Ben Witherington III, given at the Greer-Heard Forum last Saturday at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, offered some keen insight into why I am in this latter camp:
I don’t believe in “justification by doubt.” I don’t believe that philosophical skepticism is the same thing as critical thinking, and I also don’t think that the sort of historiography that is undergirded by such a prioris can help us very much with the question are the Gospels reliable, truthful witnesses when it comes to the historical Jesus. In fact, if you want to actually get at the truth of something, you have to enter into dialogue with that source giving it the benefit of the doubt, allowing it to have its say, and while one doesn’t put one’s critically thinking cap aside, if you do not approach the material with an open mind and a willingness to learn from it, you won’t get at the truth of the matter, not even the historical truth of the matter. You can’t possibly analyze the actual nature of a raging fire, by pouring cold water on it, and then picking over the ashes and charcoal thereafter.
ABC Extra – The Perfect Book
This past weekend, we kicked off a two part mini message series titled “INSPIRE!” where we are looking at how the Scriptures are both inspired by God – that is, they are His very words, authored and spoken by Him – and inspiring to us – that is, they give us guidance for our everyday lives and hope for tomorrow. Yesterday, we talked about the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” From these verses, we draw the doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. The word “verbal” means that God not only inspired the general thoughts of the biblical authors, but their very words. The words of the Bible are truly “God-breathed.” The word “plenary” comes from the Latin word plenarius, meaning, “entire,” or “complete.” Thus, the doctrine of plenary inspiration states that all, not just some of the Bible is inspired by God. From Genesis to Revelation, God is speaking.
Because the Bible is verbally and completely inspired by God, it follows that the Bible is also inerrant. Because God is finally the author of the Scriptures and God is perfect, the Scriptures themselves can be nothing less than perfect, even as the Psalmist says, “The instructions of the LORD are perfect, reviving the soul” (Psalm 19:7 NLT). Robert Preus puts the connection between the doctrine of inspiration and the doctrine of inerrancy well when he says, “Inerrancy is an inextricable concomitant of inspiration” (“Notes on the Inerrancy of Scripture”). One cannot have a vigorous and meaningful doctrine of divine inspiration without an honest position of inerrancy.
But what do we mean when we say the Bible is “inerrant”? Because there has been much misunderstanding as to precisely what inerrancy entails, I offer the below list of what inerrancy does and does not mean as outlined by James Voelz in his hermeneutics volume, What Does This Mean? Voelz outlines three things that inerrancy does not entail:
- Inerrancy does not entail exactness of quotations. This is illustrated especially when New Testament authors quote Old Testament prophetic texts. For example, at the Council of Jerusalem, when church leaders are trying to decide whether or not they should require Gentiles to become circumcised according to Jewish custom before becoming Christian, James quotes Amos 9:11-12 and says, “After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages” (Acts 15:16-18). James concludes that because the Gentiles also seek and bear the name of the Lord, “We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19) and thus counsels against requiring circumcision for Gentile converts. Notably, the Hebrew text of Amos 9:11-12 is different from the Greek text that James quotes. It reads, “In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name.” In the Hebrew text, rather than a general remnant of men seeking the Lord, Israel possesses the remnant of Edom. The difference in these two texts is not an affront to the inerrancy of the Old Testament; rather, James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is using an Old Testament prophecy for the express purpose of highlighting how many Gentiles are coming to faith in Christ.
- Inerrancy does not constitute exactness in the order of events recorded. A famous example of this principle is found in the temptation of Jesus’ in the desert. In the account in Matthew 4, the devil begins by tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread, moves on to tempting Him to throw Himself down from the temple, and then finally demands that He fall down and worship the devil. In Luke 4, however, the order of the temptations is shuffled. First, Satan tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread. Next, he tempts Him to worship him. And finally, the devil tempts Jesus to throw Himself down from the temple. What accounts for this difference? More than likely, the different evangelists wish to emphasize different things. Matthew highlights the “descending Christology” of Satan’s temptations, ending with a demand so brash and low as asking Jesus to worship him. That is, Satan wants Jesus to be “under” him by worshipping him. Luke, however, saves the temple temptation for the final one, more than likely because it is the temptation in which Satan quotes Scripture. Satan says, “It is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone’” (Luke 4:10-11). Before this temptation, Jesus has cited Scripture to refute Satan’s temptations. But now, Satan is using Scripture against Jesus. Luke seems to highlight Satan’s most sinister type of temptation – the twisting of God’s Word – by saving it for last. The change in order in no way negates the historical veracity of these temptations, however. The different evangelists simply wish to highlight different things in Jesus’ wilderness experience.
- Inerrancy does not constitute the avoidance of figures of speech. Hopefully, this aspect of inerrancy is fairly self-evident. For even today, figures of speech are commonplace. Thus, when the Psalmist sings of God’s creation, “God set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Psalm 104:5), he is not saying that the earth is somehow cosmologically static. Indeed, we know it’s not. Scientific observation has taught us that the earth revolves around the sun. The earth does indeed move. The Psalmist, however, is not speaking with cosmological concerns in mind. He is simply stating that, at least from our human perspective, the earth seems very solid and unmovable thanks to the high handiwork of our God.
In light of all this, what then can we say about inerrancy? Voelz explains inerrancy from a positive standpoint well: “To say that the sacred Scriptures are inerrant is to say that their authors are absolutely truthful according to their intended purposes” (What Does This Mean? 239). Thus, the biblical writers do not lie in any of what they write. They do, however, write using normal and expected grammatical and rhetorical tropes. Armed with an understanding of these tropes, we can trust the Scriptural writings as God’s inerrant Word. And because God’s Word is inerrant, it will never lead us astray. Praise be to God for His perfect book!
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
ABC Extra – For Thinkers Only
Last week, I posted a blog on Mark 12 and the glory of loving God with all your mind. As a follow up to that post, I wanted to offer a few further reflections on this important topic. As I mentioned in ABC, there is a common belief among many that people of faith in general, and especially the faith Christians, is not intellectually astute and is even downright imbecilic. Consider this from one of the leading atheists of our day, Sam Harris:
The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strew men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview – however heroic the efforts of redactors – is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begum to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. (Sam Harris, The End of Faith, Location 601-605)
Two things are especially notable about Sam Harris’ quote. First, he assumes a fundamentally modern epistemology. That is, he assumes that, as history marches forward, we inexorably become smarter, more insightful, and yes, even better than the generations before us. The bare events of human history, however, do not always bear out Harris’ assumption. The Dark Ages saw a sad retrograding of human knowledge and two world wars demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are by no means becoming somehow inexorably better. History does not always and only march forward into a brighter, better future. Second, note the vehicles by which Sam Harris says the world becomes a better place: “secular politics and scientific culture.” Really? It was the precise wedding of secular politics and scientific culture that gave us the eugenics of the Nazis. The Nazi’s applied Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” politically to usher in a reign of terror and death against anyone they did not deem “fit.”
The fact of the matter is, it is only Christianity which gives us a cohesive explanation for why some people do evil in the name of religion, as Sam Harris aptly points out, and others do evil in the name of “secular politics and scientific culture,” the very things which Harris lauds as the highest good. Christianity says it is the depravity of man which drives him to do evil. Because man is depraved, he will do evil in the name of all sorts of things, twisting things which can be good for his own evil intentions.
Thus, Christianity and its holy book, the Bible, provide a cohesive and even comprehensive explanation for the world which we encounter. Perhaps the biblical authors aren’t nearly so ignorant as Sam Harris makes them out to be.
This all leads us back to Mark 12. When Jesus tells a questioning Pharisee that the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all you mind and with all your strength” (verse 30), the Pharisee responds, “You are right” (verse 33). As I mentioned in ABC, this little phrase, “You are right,” is a marvelous declaration of faith. Indeed, Jesus takes it as such: “When Jesus saw that the Pharisee had answer wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God” (verse 34). Interestingly, the Greek word for “wisely” is nounechos, the word noun meaning “mind” and the word echos meaning “have.” In other words, when this Pharisee answers wisely, he answers in such a way that demonstrates that he “has a mind.”
Like the Pharisee who agrees with Jesus, we too can “have a mind” as Christians. Our faith does not require us to check our brains at the door, no matter what Sam Harris may say. This is why Jesus calls us to love the Lord, our God, not only with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength, but also with all our minds. So think on God and His Word and you’ll find that, when it comes to Christ, there’s a lot to think about!
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Weekend Extra – Mind Your Maker
The other day, I stumbled across an internet quiz which, if you answered a few simple questions, claimed to tell you whether you follow your head or your heart. The questions included, “Is kissing in public cute or should it be avoided?” “Are flowers, little romantic notes, and romantic restaurants an important part of dating for you?” After seven simple questions, I learned that I followed my head more than my heart. I’m not surprised. After all, I’ve considered this characteristic of my personality before…in my head.
There is a regularly peddled belief, often lapped up by our emotionally inundated society, that it is better to follow your heart rather than your head. Just look at the sappy sentiments that permeate greeting cards which are being given all over our country on this Valentine’s Day. In her book Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert chronicles how she traveled the world after divorcing her husband, looking for insight into life, which she gains from a medicine man in Bali. Apparently, even a Divinely witnessed moral commitment made in marriage is no match for the whims of a human heart. And, indeed, it shouldn’t be according to Gilbert. To follow a moral commitment made in marriage rather than your heart would be no less than, well, immoral!
Certainly, the human heart is important. The wise man of Proverbs reminds us, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23). But at the same time the human heart is capable of great good, it is also prone to deep evil. Jesus warns, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19). The heart, then, cannot and should not be the summit and sum of human decisions and desires. This is why Jesus, in our text for this past weekend, says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). In His words, Jesus is quoting the Shema, a Hebrew word meaning, “Hear,” based on Deuteronomy 6:4-5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Faithful Jews still recite the Shema two times a day and it is traditional for them to recite this as their last words before they die.
What is so striking about Jesus’ recitation of the Shema in Mark 12 is His addition to it. The original Shema reads: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” But Jesus adds another way in which we can love the Lord, our God. Not just with our hearts and souls and strength, but also with our minds: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” It is not just the heart that loves God and follows Him, it is also the mind. The mind is important to Jesus!
The apostle Paul writes, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2). In order to follow God, we need not just properly disposed hearts, but miraculously transformed minds. Minds which love to ponder the things of God. Minds which diligently studies the Scriptures. Minds which use their intellectual capabilities to study God’s world and marvel at its grandeur and intricacies.
Do you love the Lord, your God, with all your mind? Are you learning new things about God and His Word? If you’re not, you’re missing out on a fantastic part of your life in Christ. So join a Bible study, listen to good teaching, and ponder anew what the Almighty can do. For our God always gives us something new – and exciting – to think about.
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Sermon Extra – True Treasure
The wise man of Proverbs reminds us, “A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones” (Proverbs 14:30). Envy, the wise man says, is dangerous. However, envy is also such a universal part of the human condition that God finds it necessary to warn us against it time and time again. He even prohibits it in His Ten Commandments: “You shall not covet…anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).
Part of what makes the sin of envy so dangerous is that because it can be engaged in privately, it can often go unnoticed and, even if people do spot envy in your eye, there are little to no repercussions. Though you may get arrested for stealing, no such punishment exists for envying. Indeed, we even have a saying that encourages envy: “You can look, but you can’t touch.” The under-riding premise of such a statement is that it although it is not okay to take something defiantly, it is okay to lust after it longingly. It is okay to envy.
This past weekend, we continued our “Fit for Life II” series with a look at our hearts and how they are connected to our finances. The message was based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:19-21:
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
As I mentioned in my message, when we read words like these, we can be tempted to think, “Jesus’ words don’t apply to me. I don’t store up for myself treasures on earth because I don’t have any treasures! This economy has hit me really hard!” And so we dismiss out of hand Jesus’ words about how our hearts and treasures are connected.
It is important to understand that when Jesus spoke these words, He spoke them not to people who were well-to-do, but to people who were poverty-stricken. The crowds who listened to Jesus were most likely comprised of simple Palestinian farmers and tradesmen who would have been making around a denarius a day, equivalent to about 20 cents in today’s currency. Thus, Jesus is calling on people who must live on 20 cents a day not to store up earthly treasure! These people hardly seem like a group who would need this kind of reminder! But Jesus knows the sad state of the human condition. Even among the poor, storing up the wrong treasure in the wrong place can become a huge problem. At issue is not the amount of money that a person has, but the perception of money that a person holds. A person can be greedy and poor all at the same time. For a poor person, like a rich person, can envy those who have more money and earthly treasure than they. This is why Jesus continues:
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:22-23)
The ancients believed that the eyes were a source of light that helped illumine the world around, thereby helping a person see. When the light of the eyes went dark, a person would go blind. Thus, Jesus says, “If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” But Jesus means to describe more than just physical blindness here. He says, “If your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.” The Greek word for “bad” is poneros, meaning “evil.” The eyes, just like any other part of the body, can be used for evil. The eyes can be used to gaze and covet. The eyes can be used to stare and envy. Just because you don’t have a lot of money doesn’t mean you can’t you use your eyes to look at someone else’s money or lifestyle and secretly desire it for yourself. And this, Jesus says, is poneros.
What is the solution to such envy and covetousness? The apostle Paul says it is to “know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2-3). Rather than seeking and striving after the treasures of this world, we are to seek and to strive after Christ. For in Him is true treasure. So treasure Christ, for He treasures you. In the words of C.H. Spurgeon, “So did Jesus Himself, at the utmost cost, buy the world to gain His Church, which was the treasure which He desired.” You are Christ’s treasure.
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Zach’s
message or Dr Player’s ABC!
Weekend Extra – It’s Crystal Clear!
In 2008, the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life conducted one of the largest surveys ever of Americans’ religious beliefs. Though it found that 92 percent of people believe in God, when asked to specify who God is or make hard and fast distinctions between their faith systems and the faith systems of other religions, respondents struggled. Instead, most Americans have an increasingly nonexclusive attitude when it comes to faith. 70 percent of people surveyed believe that many paths lead to God. Gregory Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum, explains: “Even though Americans tend to take religion quite seriously and are a highly religious people, there is a certain degree of openness and a lack of dogmatism in their approach to faith and the teachings of their faith” (“Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds,” Washington Post, 9.24.08).
In all honesty, the Pew Foundation’s survey offers no real surprises. Though it is one of the largest surveys ever conducted, the results are a dime a dozen. Survey after survey has demonstrated that, though most Americans are “spiritual” and believe in “God,” they have no real cohesive doctrinal system nor do they subscribe wholeheartedly to an external source of authority such as the Bible. People claim to be spiritual, but their spirituality is fuzzy.
Long before researchers were around to conduct in-depth surveys on people’s religious attitudes, the apostle Paul foresaw that such misguided faith would be the order of the day for many: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). In a world which subscribes to fuzzy spirituality, Paul seeks to inject some clarity from the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit clearly says…” True faith in God is never ill-defined. It is as clear as the Gospel itself. Indeed, according to Paul, a faith that does not find its clarity vis-à-vis the Gospel is not a faith in God, but a faith from demons. And for the nebulous faiths of demons, Paul warns, “some will abandon the faith.” Two things are notable in this phrase. First, the Greek word for “abandon” is apostesontai, from which we get our English word “apostasy,” a word which, etymologically, means “to stand apart.” Paul’s argument, then, is that standing apart from faith in Christ means standing with demons. Second, the arthrous phrase “the faith” reminds us that, quite distinct from the popular conception that many faiths lead to God, there is only one true faith – faith in Jesus Christ.
What is the way out of the fuzzy spirituality which plagues our culture? Paul cites two remedies. First, fuzzy spirituality must be remedied by the Gospel: “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:9-10). Hope in the living God and His Savior, Jesus Christ, leads to salvation. Period. Of this we can be clear and sure. No nebulous spirituality can promise salvation like the Gospel can. It can only conjure up shady specters of possible hereafters. Second, fuzzy spirituality must be remedied by the authority of Scripture: “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13). The Gospel is revealed in, by, and through the pages of Scripture. Thus, if we desire clarity on the Gospel specifically and theology generally, we turn to Scripture and submit to its authority and believe its promises. With the Gospel and Scripture in our hearts and hands, clarity is given to things spiritual, with even more clarity being promised in eternity: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Praise be to God for the clarity which comes from our Creator!
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Doctor Player’s ABC!
Weekend Extra – It’s Not Yours!
“It’s my body and I can do what I want with it.” If you’ve parented a teenager, then you may have heard these words before, usually in an attempt to justify some dangerous behavior such as underage drinking, abusing illegal or controlled substances, or engaging in promiscuity. This phrase has also been wielded to support abortion rights. I even stumbled across a “Facebook” page of this name in support of those who want to get tattooed and pierced, much to their parents’ chagrin.
“It’s my body and I can do what I want with it.” As much as some might wish this to be true, it is patently false. On the one hand, there are some things which are simply physiologically impossible for us to do with our bodies. We cannot force our bodies to produce healthy tissue rather than tissue which is cancerous. We cannot stop our bodies from aging. We cannot compel our bodies to work without rest. We cannot drink excessively without suffering a hangover. The bare restraints of nature constrain us to confess that our bodies are not always ours to do with as we please.
On the other hand, there are some things that, even if they are physiologically possible for us to do, are not beneficial. As the apostle Paul reminds us, “‘Everything is permissible for me’ – but not everything is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Excessive drinking, chain smoking, and raunchy promiscuity are examples of such activities which are not beneficial to us, for they hurt our bodies. And because they hurt our bodies, they dishonor God, for God has created and still cares for our bodies.
In our text for this past weekend, Paul exhorts us, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). There are a couple of things that are especially notable about this verse. First, Paul reminds us that our bodies, rather than being used to chase after every hedonistic whim, should be used in worship of God. That is, all that we say, think, and do with our bodies ought to give glory to the Creator rather than defy His commands and intentions. For finally, our bodies belong to God: “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Because things like promiscuity or substance abuse defy God’s commands and intentions, they ought to be eschewed by us.
Second, it is important to notice Paul’s subtle shift from the plural to the singular in this verse: “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice.” There are many bodies worshipping God, but only one living sacrifice to God. Why is this important? Because it reminds us that not only do our bodies belong to God, they also belong to each other. We are to come together to offer a single, unified sacrifice of worship with our lives to God. This is why Paul continues, “We, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5). We belong to each other! Thus, any protestation that says “It’s my body and I can do what I want with it” is wrong not only because it’s insufferably bombastic, but also because what I do with my body really does effect others, if not physically, then at least spiritually or emotionally. And, as a person who is called to love others, I should worship with my body in such a way that not only guards against personal ill effects, but against corporate ill effects as well.
It’s not your body and you cannot do with it as you want. Though this may sound strange to a culture that bows at the altar of rugged individualism, it is actually a precious truth. For God’s will for our bodies is always better than our whims for our bodies. And so we trust Him with our bodies – to the glory of God and in the service of others.
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Dr. Player’s ABC!
Pastor Zach's Blog 