Book Review: More than a Prophet by Philip Mauro

Mauro, Philip, More than a Prophet. Grace Abounding Ministries, Inc. 1919.

scan236september012006.jpgI was first introduced to Philip Mauro a few years ago when I became suspicious of the A-Millennial interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. In this perspective, Matthew 24 prophesied a future tribulation, though not like Dispensational tribulationism, nevertheless, it still portrayed a time of worldly persecution and earthly defeat for the Church. They (A-mils) argued that the Church won the spiritual battle, but it was never the intent that the Church would triumph on earth, rather she looked to another city.

I stumbled into a preterist site, which contained some dangerous ideas, but nevertheless, I thought it wise to look carefully through some of its articles. There were several articles by Mauro on Daniel and Matthew. Mauro was both insightful and a faithful exegete of the text. He dealt carefully with each passage without doing exegetical gymnastics with certain clear texts like Matthew 24. Since then, I have read through various portions of his commentary on Revelation: Of Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass published in 1933.

In this small book, “More than a Prophet,” Mauro answers objections from a unknown classical dispensationalists who argues vehemently for the postponement theory. The book reads like Paul’s discourse in Romans 9 with the unknown objector. The unknown writer argues the traditional case for Dispensational thinking that the kingdom was offered to the Jews, however the Jews did not embrace the kingdom and therefore the kingdom was postponed.

Mauro argues strongly that the kingdom was a spiritual kingdom. Since the kingdom was at hand, John the Baptist’s prophecy was fulfilled in the first century with the coming of Messiah. Messiah brought with him a spiritual kingdom offered to all who would repent of their sins. Mauro writes:

Therefore, in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have, as regards this present age, but one kingdom; and that is a kingdom which is entered only by the new birth. The boundaries of that kingdom are purely spiritual (pg. 48).

Mauro seeks to preserve the traditional A-Millennial position that the kingdom had only spiritual manifestations and not earthly. In attempting to correct the Dispensational error of a future earthly kingdom–during the 1,000 year reign of Christ after the Tribulation–Mauro commits the fallacy made by many by offering an unbiblical dualism.

In his defense of a spiritual kingdom, Mauro fails to underscore the consequences of regeneration to the earthly realm, thus separating Christ’s kingdom into a purely abstract expression. Mauro also fails to apply the same hermeneutic that he applied to the Olivet Discourse. In the Olivet Discourse, Mauro understood that the “coming in the clouds” was a strong Old Covenant imagery (Isa.19) indicating that the coming indicated judgment, physical judgment. In the same manner, the kingdom of peace that has come upon us is in our midst, not merely in our hearts, but spreading throughout all the earth for the glory of the King.

I do not recommend Philip Mauro book More than a Prophet unless you are interested in refuting traditional 19th century forms of argumentation. If this is the case, I can recommend better resources. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend his other works which can be easily accessed.

A Review of Stumbling toward faith

Johnny Cash once stated that he had been everywhere. a Renee Altson has also been everywhere. She has been in the land of abuse, humiliation, shame, guilt, anger, and deep sorrow. This is a road very few people will ever travel. Stumbling toward faith is a profound and depressing read. It hurts and it stings; it is personal. To be sexually abused by your father, while he prays the Lord�s Prayer or sings the hymnody of the church is the most perturbing and despicable form of abuse. When anyone would lose their sanity over such atrocity, Renee fights; she fights for her sanity and for her humanity.

This book is the story of a woman who has tried all religious means to find refuge from her pain and, as a result, it deepened her agony and led her to even further disparity. The church, the house of God, the abode of comfort, the haven of rest, became the abusive ecclesiastical house in the life of Renee. She sought a place to belong and found that people wanted to control her instead of loving her. She sought love and found abuse; different forms of abuse. She experienced abuse unfathomable to most of our modern minds.

Renee�s story is the story of how fundamentalism can ruin the lives of people. It is the story of how man-made law can lead a person away from the very God they seek to worship. But Renee�s story is more than that; it is a powerful, though, implicit, critique of the evangelical world; a critique of those who have made God after their own image.

My first impression of this book was one of skepticism. Any book using different fonts, two-word sentences, and lower case style, strikes me as another emergent attempt to demoralize the catholic church; but this book caught me off guard. It truly spoke to me as a man; as a Christian; as a churchman. I love the church. It is my mother and I cherish its ideas and dogmas, but I am well aware of its sinful tendencies. After all, if it were not sinful Christ would have no business in sanctifying His bride.

I was struck by the simple poems and I was even struck by the verses she referenced. It was open and honest. The book runs like a series of journal entries. It appears to have no connection, but everything in it connects when one realizes it is the story of a woman who has been stripped of every form of human dignity and now finds herself trying to put the broken pieces of glass together to reconstitute her broken soul. Continue reading “A Review of Stumbling toward faith”

  1. “I�ve been everywhere man!�  (back)

Stumbling Toward Faith…

Johnny Cash once stated that he had been everywhere.1 Renee Altson has also been everywhere. She has been in the land of abuse, humiliation, shame, guilt, anger, and deep sorrow. This is a road very few people will ever travel. Stumbling toward faith is a profound and depressing read. It hurts and it stings; it is personal. To be sexually abused by your father, while he prays the Lord’s Prayer or sings the hymnody of the church is the most perturbing and despicable form of abuse. When anyone would lose their sanity over such atrocity, Renee fights; she fights for her sanity and for her humanity.

This book is the story of a woman who has tried all religious means to find refuge from her pain and, as a result, it deepened her agony and led her to even further disparity. The church, the house of God, the abode of comfort, the haven of rest, became the abusive ecclesiastical house in the life of Renee. She sought a place to belong and found that people wanted to control her instead of loving her. She sought love and found abuse; different forms of abuse. She experienced abuse unfathomable to most of 5179ec8al_aa240_.jpgour modern minds.

Renee’s story is the story of how fundamentalism can ruin the lives of people. It is the story of how man-made law can lead a person away from the very God they seek to worship. But Renee’s story is more than that; it is a powerful, though, implicit, critique of the evangelical world; a critique of those who have made God after their own image.

My first impression of this book was one of skepticism. Any book using different fonts, two-word sentences, and lower case style, strikes me as another emergent attempt to demoralize the catholic church; but this book caught me off guard. It truly spoke to me as a man; as a Christian; as a churchman. I love the church. It is my mother and I cherish its ideas and dogmas, but I am well aware of its sinful tendencies. After all, if it were not sinful Christ would have no business in sanctifying His bride.

I was struck by the simple poems and I was even struck by the verses she referenced. It was open and honest. The book runs like a series of journal entries. It appears to have no connection, but everything in it connects when one realizes it is the story of a woman who has been stripped of every form of human dignity and now finds herself trying to put the broken pieces of glass together to reconstitute her broken soul.

Theological and Practical Observation

In page 61 Renee writes:

In my journey toward god, one of the greatest things I have learned is that there is much I do not know.

Renee Altson offers a uniquely post-modern perspective into our modern world. I am not one to dismiss the positive elements of modernism, but I am certain that this post-modern observation a bears a striking resemblance to the early church. In my Presbyterian tradition, a man named Gordon Clark asserted that only a rational Christianity makes sense of reality. For Clark, rationality was the climax of Christian existence. He even insisted that unless someone has the right propositions, he shall not enter the kingdom of God. When asked once about James’ statement that even the demons know there is One God, he stated: “The problem with the demons is that they did not know the other Christian propositions.” Van Til, on the other hand, opposed this form of thinking and spoke much about the idea of an “apparent contradiction.” For Van Til, mystery is a property of the Christian religion. We should cherish mysteries, for in mysteries we know that we cannot exhaust the mind of God.

Renee Altson, did not intend to make a theological proposition though this comment strikes at the heart of the Christian religion. She understands that to diminish the greatness of God into little slogans and catch-phrases are injurious to the faith and practice of the Christian faith.

Tragedies are a part of the Christian faith and for some, tragedies can draw them forever away from the Christian faith. Altson lived with the sense of being constantly suffocated by her father, her world, and her life. She could never reach forgiveness no matter how much she prayed or walked an isle. She was dismembered and God’s solution was to tear her apart a little more. As the title makes clear, this is the evil that God allowed. He could have stopped it; He could have sent a fire from heaven to consume her father, but He chose not to do so. Why? Only in His wise and infinite plan. My only prayer is that God would grant me a spirit of love and give me words that cannot be found in bumper stickers.

I recommend this book to any man seeking the pastorate and those who will seek to touch the lives of others with similar background. What Renee has done is awaken my (our) selfish eyes to the inexplicable needs of those around us.

Footnotes

  1. From his great hit: “I’ve been everywhere man!” [↩ back]
  1. Though Sinclair Ferguson has stated that there is no such thing as post-modernism  (back)

A Review of Leonard Vander Zee’s: Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper

Vander Zee writes out of a deep sense of grief over the evangelical denial/neglect of the Sacraments. This is what truly drives him to write this informative book. In his own words,

“Evangelicals apparently are not very interested in the sacraments, which seems to correspond to their lack of interest in ecclesiology in general.”1

Vander Zee masterfully exegetes what is at the heart of this Protestant abandonment of a robust view of the waters of baptism and the Eucharistic meal. They have made the preaching the center of all worship,2 and the Lord’s Table an unfortunate monthly or quarterly inconvenience.

Vander Zee helpfully re-orients the reader to see in these sacraments more than mere church activities or necessary duties, but rather a life transforming and soul-changing rite that impart grace to the elect. The evangelical (broadly speaking) world needs to be called back to where the Scriptures and the Church have been calling for centuries: to the frequent table feast and the powerful sign and seal of baptism.

The book is divided into 12 chapters. Each chapter focuses on a particular dimension of sacramental theology. The reader who has had little exposure to this topic will find himself familiarized with historical, theological, and existential levels of sacramental thinking after reading this tome. As a result, he will become aware of different theological traditions and furthermore, why the Church from her early days has made these sacraments an essential part of their worship.

Vander Zee approaches these topics from a distinctly Reformed perspective. Nevertheless, he has carefully analyzed other traditions where the Eucharist and Baptism are inextricably tied to their liturgy and life. The author is not only interested in defining a Reformed view of the sacraments (though his expositions of them reveals his presuppositions), but he is eagerly seeking to see the sacraments as means for unity and peace in the Church. Due to this passionate plea for unity, he interacts with the honorable Alexander Schmemann,3 who beautifully taught that we are hungry beings and our souls can only be satisfied in Christ offered for us. “All hunger,” wrote Schmemann, “is a hunger for God. All desire is finally a desire for Him.”4

The author interacts with an eclectic group of sacramental scholars ranging from Catholic to Baptist writers. As a Reformed Scholar, it is only natural that the author emphasizes some Reformed distinctive such as covenantal baptism and a Calvinistic view of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are supplemented by positive interactions with other traditions that seek to elevate the importance of the sacraments in the Church.

Ultimately, sacramental interest is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming individualism of our day. In his discussion of the history of baptism, Vander Zee operates under the presupposition that the Bible, particularly the New Testament, operates under Jewish conceptions of the family.

“In the Jewish way of thinking, one’s relationship to God is not merely individual, but social.” 5

In this same manner, argues Vander Zee, the New Testament continues that covenantal structure begun in the Older Covenant where families were invited to partake of all sacramental privileges in the covenant.The households are always included in God’s promises.

The intention of this book is to bring together the body of Christ, battered by divers controversies, into one baptism. The Church is plagued by separatists who would rather die alone than seek catholicity. In their estimation, individualism is the badge of orthodoxy. In other words, my response to the gospel, my commitment to Christ, and my remembering the Lord at the table is the foundation of true Christianity. In a spiritual level, it is my faith that God is seeking and my attestation of that faith in baptism that He desires. Certainly in such an attempt to please God, they are in actuality denying the work of grace in God’s gifts to the Church. The stake is high: if individualism wins the day, all that the Reformers considered sacred will vanish and give way to autonomous man operating their autonomous wills, preaching their autonomous message to an autonomous congregation who finds solace not in God’s means to nurture and sanctify, but their own human-devised methodologies.

In light of all this, there is one element of this book that is astonishingly faulty. On page 100, under footnote 29, Vander Zee seems to give in to the symbolism of baptistic theology in baptism. He writes,

“In the practice of baptism today, however, I think its sacramental nature is best highlighted by using as much water as possible according to the circumstances. There is an exciting return to immersion among non-Baptist churches, even for the baptism of infant and young children. I believe that immersion, where possible, is the best means to express the meaning of baptism.”

This statement is utterly problematic. Even if the symbolism of baptism by immersion seemed to reflect what happens to us in baptism, the question is: does the Scripture teach immersion? It is not enough to seek catholicity at the expense of abandoning certain Biblical and Reformational principles in order to unite.6 It has been sprinkling and pouring that has united the “One, holy, catholic and apostolic church,” not immersion. Furthermore, the Biblical imagery of immersion bears no similarity to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Christ was not buried under the earth, but above the earth in a tomb. Suffice to say, Vander Zee builds a crescendo leading to a beautiful portrait of true baptism, however, he fails to seal that picture with the imagery the Bible conveys.

As a final note, this book walks the reader through a litany of events; from the corporate unity that was broken so severely in the Church of Corinth,7 to the historical battles fought over sacramental definitions in the Reformation, to the modern divisive waters of baptism that were truly intended to unite. We are reminded, however, that amidst these tumultuous historical events, our God has not left us without the proper means of nourishment. He brings us to the waters of baptism and to the table of His dear Son to be fed and assured that we are His to His everlasting praise. These are simple, physical means: water, bread and wine used by God to create a new humanity. In the words of Vander Zee, ” When the worshiping community shares the cup of wine, it affirms what it already is and will become in God’s kingdom, a community of joy and gladness, the feasting people of God.”8

Word format – christbaptismandthelord_ssupper.doc

  1. Vander Zee, Leonard J. Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship, pg. 10. [↩ back]
  2. Preaching must be maintained as central in Orthodox Reformed worship, but it cannot be put against the Sacraments, for they work together as means of grace to convert the soul. [↩ back]
  3. See pages 18, 202, 212, 219, 224, 239. [↩ back]
  4. Quoted in Vander Zee, pg. 239. Taken from Schmemann’s For the Life of the World, p.15. [↩ back]
  5. Vander Zee, pg. 99. [↩ back]
  6. Immersion is also practiced by the Orthodox Church. Though the Orthodox Church has been greatly used by God, they are still practicing erroneous baptism by denying the rich Old Testament symbolism of pouring and sprinkling. [↩ back]
  7. I Corinthians 11. [↩ back]
  8. Vander Zee, pg. 240. [↩ back]

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IV

cslsmoking_thumb.jpgThe second book entitled What Christians Believe deals with alternatives to the Christian faith. Lewis first establishes that though other religions are inherently wrong as a whole, yet Christians cannot categorically affirm that they have nothing to offer that is good and wholesome. This is a valid point as far as it goes. If by affirming some good in other religions, Lewis refers to their commitment (as in Islam), their good behavior in public (Mormons; though they would be a “cult” in my perspective), or good moral teachings (like Judaism), then I think it is a fair assessment. Nevertheless, Christians reject any alternative to Christianity, because God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”[1] By allowing any other religion opposed to the God of the Bible, the right to instruct us on how we ought to live is to break the first commandment. God Himself has the authority to instruct us and all that we need is found in His Revelation. In the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth, but when any other truth, besides the Scriptures becomes authoritative in our daily instruction, we have deceived ourselves.

Before delving into a few specifics of this section of the book, there is a humorous section where Lewis discusses one reader’s complaint about his constant usage of the word “damned.” Lewis writes:

One listener complained of the word “damned” as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is under God’s curse, and will (apart from God’s grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.[2]

This is somewhat humorous in light of the contemporary evangelical fear of using language that would be considered cursing. This is in my estimation a hangover from fundamentalism. Lewis is right, but does not go far enough. Lewis is correct that the use of the word “damned” is reserved and can be used for all things and people that are worthy of curses and damnation. (for my article on cursing click here)

Among the great rivals for the conception of God, is the concept of No-god. This is atheism (a-No; Theism-God). Lewis develops his critique of atheism by saying that atheism is too simple. Atheism leads to meaninglessness. But if it is meaningless, then how do we know that statement to be a meaningful expression of what atheism signifies? But also, Christianity can fall into that same category. It can also be too simple and fall short of a proper alternative to atheism. This is what Lewis calls Christianity and water. He writes:

Christianity-and-water, (is) the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.[3]

This, of course, is convenient Christianity. “Just tell me when I must come to church and how much I have to give, and then leave me alone.” As Lewis argues later in the book, you cannot have a religion with no ethical demands. God plus no duty equals no Christianity. Unfortunately, millions prefer to serve this God that is only good. It is natural to assume why the natural man does not want to pursue God at any depth. If he does so, then he must be confronted with his many responsibilities before the government of the family and the civil government as well. Further, he will come to grasp with the horrible consequences of not submitting to Christ as Lord. To put it simply, doctrinal depth can lead to a God that is not so convenient to the modern mind.

It is here also that the atheist “inquisitor”[4] wants to have it both ways. The intellectual atheist sees the gospel message and says, “This is too simple.” It does not match their criteria of what a respectable religion should be. On the other hand, when they are presented with the great knowledge of the church throughout the ages, they say, ” This is too hard.” At this point the atheist reveals what is truly in his heart. As Romans 3 says: “There is none who seek after God, no not one.”

The apologetic of C.S. Lewis would be considered to be evidential in nature.[5] Though, he may also be influenced by classical apologetics.[6] Lewis seems to use the latter in proving the existence of God. He begins by proving the God of theism and then perhaps the resurrected Christ.[7] Lewis asserts that the atheist cannot deny the existence of God. Everything that he assumes proves God. Lewis uses the example of a robber. He is considered by society to be bad, but where does badness come from? According to Lewis:

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.[8]

He continues:

All the things, which enable a bad man to be effectively bad, are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.[9]

The bad does not exist apart from the good, there can be no real dichotomy in this world.[10]

Briefly, I shall speak to an area of Lewis’ writings that I despise, his treatment of free will. But before doing so, I want to relish on his idea of the great king’s purpose for the Advent (His Coming). Lewis sees the present world as “Enemy-occupied territory.” Surely since the fall we have lost the innocence of the garden and have allowed the enemies of God, the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), to have dominion over what rightly belongs to God. Nevertheless, those who have seen the end of the story are fully aware that God’s secret plan will crush Satan’s armies. Lewis beautifully summarizes the story of the Great King:

Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you may say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[11]

A great sabotage; this is a great plan to take over the planet that rightly belongs to the King of Kings. This calls for activism in every sense of the word. We cannot remain silent in this world pretending that what will be will be; this is fatalism, not Calvinism. Having dominion requires a plan; and only God’s plan can nullify the enemies’ tactics.[12]

Allow me to speak to Lewis’ view of free will. Lewis writes:

God created things, which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating.[13]

This form of argumentation you see ad infinitum. In fact, it may have been this exact argument from Lewis that has influenced notable Arminian scholars throughout the last 30 years. I can see the validity of it, if one looks merely at the existential level. All of us want to be free, autonomous, not bound by anything outside ourselves, the captain of our ship and masters of our own souls. Nevertheless, the Bible presents an entirely different picture. When Lewis speaks of free will being the ability to go either wrong or right, he is misleading the reader (certainly not on purpose). If by freedom, Lewis simply meant the physical ability to do one thing over another, to have pizza instead of spaghetti, then there would be no dispute. But Lewis uses freedom in a spiritual level. How can man choose good or evil, if he is dead (Ephesians 2:1)? Or how can he choose the good when he does not seek the good (Romans 3:10-21)? The fall brought humanity to a perplexing stage. He can no longer desire the things of God, unless they are given to him by the Father (John 6:44). For Lewis free will is necessary because without it, we are mere robots. But would that not be a glorious thing? Imagine doing God’s will at every breath and at every stage of life. To be a robot is only drudgery to those who do not know the wonder of being led by God at every moment. Nevertheless, the Biblical picture is that we are not robots, but responsible beings. God is sovereign and we are responsible, but lest we find some sense of pleasure in that fact, Paul tells us that even our deeds (our good works) is a gift from God. He works in and through us. Apart from God we are nothing. Only the regenerate mind can do good and even then we cannot claim it for ourselves, for God receives all the glory. This I believe is the right perspective on the matter, though incomplete in its treatment.

Finally, in this final section, Lewis speaks rightly about the inability of man to speak without divine consent. That is, man speaks because God grants Him the ability to do so. In Lewis’ words:

When you are arguing against Him (God) you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.[14]

How is it like to breathe because God gives you breath? How is it to speak against your Creator? And how is it to make a “case” against the existence of God while being upheld by His power to do so? Indeed, what is man that God is mindful of him.


[1] Exodus 20:2.[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 45.[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] I am very careful with this idea of an atheist inquiring about the faith. Calvinism teaches that unless the Spirit of God changes the heart no one can truly seek the things of God. Generally, when the atheist “seeks” God, they are seeking what they can gain for themselves.

[5] John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas hold to this position.

[6] Held by R.C. Sproul and others.

[7] I am not aware of Lewis using arguments from the resurrection in his apologetic. I am willing to be corrected.

[8] Mere Christianity, pg. 50.

[9] Ibid., pg. 50.

[10] In the world to come, all bad is abolished and all things will be perfectly good.

[11] Lewis, pg. 51.

[12] Only an optimistic eschatology is capable of accomplishing this. I doubt Lewis dealt at all with the issue of eschatology, but if I had to guess he would probably be some sort of Amillenialist like most Anglicans

[13] Ibid. 52.

[14] Mere Christianity, pg. 55.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I

180px-merechristianity.jpg Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. A Touchstone Book, Published by Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1952.

This classic is drawn from three separate parts. The first is The Case for Christianity, then Christian Behaviour, and finally Beyond Personality. All three were given on the air as introductory lectures on the Christian religion. To the glorious benefit of the readers Lewis has taken his talks and with a few additions, put together this marvelous work that has served to lead many to consider the claims of the Christian God.

In this series of 15-20 articles, I would like to discuss some of the crucial aspects of Lewis’ writings and make some observations, which, I deem to be important in this day and age. I would like to begin where all good books begin–the preface.

Here we are, removed from C.S. Lewis thirty-three years since God called him. Yet, we are still moved by the brilliance of his works and are amazed by the enormous wealth his famous works[1] still bring to publishers and the movie industry alike. It is crucial to realize that Lewis’ intention in this volume is not to put Christian against Christian, but rather to make a case for the Christian faith. But before doing so, there are several observations in his preface that are worth mentioning.

The relevance of C.S. Lewis is seen in his efforts to unite the body of Christ. Granted, in modern theological language, Lewis would be considered an ecumenicist. That is, one who seeks unity at all cost. As such Lewis avoided dealing with certain issues. It is not that despised them, but that they were not important enough as he sought to defend the faith. To some, to be ecumenical is to flirt with the devil. Nevertheless, Lewis’ ecumenicism is healthy and needed. Lewis is not someone who would compromise the Creedal statements of the church, nor would He compromise other significant elements. However, it is important to see Lewis as someone who was very aware of the non-believing world. He was indeed, an apologist for the Christian faith to the un-Christian masses.[2]

C.S. Lewis was conscious of how the world perceived Christians and he wanted to train believers to be not just intelligent and sophisticated thinkers, but kind and gentle as well.[3] One example of this occurs in Lewis’ preface, in which he writes how we ought to behave if unbelievers are present. He writes:

Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His Only Son.[4]

This is a lesson in what I call “Christian prevention.” If the reader will keep in mind that the unbeliever is at most times completely naïve about the most basic element of the Christian faith, then why would he debate another Christian in areas of the faith that are beyond foreign to the unbelieving ear? The sad state of the church is due to unnecessary fights and inflammatory language that divide and tear asunder the unity of the church. Lewis, in this instance gives us an initial caution mark of what to do in a particular situation. It is better in my estimation to deal with general issues of worldview thinking, unless an unbeliever is curious about something he has heard.[5]

One common critique of C.S. Lewis is that he rarely dealt with controversial Christian issues. He speaks briefly about this when he says:

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ…to say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions.[6]

This is crucial to understand about the nature of Lewis’ writings, and that is, that he was called to be an apologist.[7] As an apologist his audience was not primarily Christian. Lewis wrote in insightful and provocative ways to call the atheist (which, he was before embracing Christ) to see the claims of Christianity. C.S. Lewis made the Christian message appealing to the Oxford philosopher as well as to the children. Of course, Lewis was an Anglican; he never denied it, but he was a reserved Anglican. He never cared too much about presenting the claims of the Church of England versus Methodism or Presbyterianism.

There is a short illustration used by Lewis, which has been used elsewhere, that may shed some light into his thinking about decisions concerning religions.[8] Lewis’ desire is to get an unbeliever into the hall. He writes that if he can “bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted.”[9] Here, once again, Lewis reiterates his passion to draw unbelievers to the Christian message. But once you get into the hall, then the individual is confronted with several doors from which to choose. But which religion, or perhaps which communion should they enter? C.S. Lewis answers: “And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “ Do I like that kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”[10] The language Lewis uses seems to indicate that he is referring to what communion of saints one must enter once he sees the light of the Christian faith. Whether this is the case or not, one needs to analyze internally the reasons to enter into a particular door. Certain doors may seem attractive, but they may be deadly. C.S. Lewis calls for caution and wisdom in these decisions.[11] Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I”

Velvet Elvis Embraced and Critiqued Part 3

Movement Three begins with a host of illustrations that unveil this idea of aweness: to be in awe of something is to be struck by its wonder from surfing Trestles (072) to putting his arms around a man who now stares at his wife’s open casket (075). Much of life offers us moments of rare beauty that only God can provide. Rob calls these moments “Something Bigger” (074). They are greater than us and provide a moment where we can embrace life as if all the evil in this world is nothing comparing to the greatness of those few moments. As Bell notes:

Whatever those things are that make you feel fully alive and like the universe is ultimately a good place and you are not alone, I need a faith that doesn’t deny these moments but embraces them (074).

But lest we think that those moments occur merely in the joy of our lives, God also orchestrates His glory to be revealed in the “tragic and gut-wrenching moments when we cannot escape the simple fact that there is a way more going on around us than we realize” (075).

Bell proceeds with a fascinating discussion on epistemology (though he does not use that word). Man in his nature knows God. He experiences God’s majesty in nature and in his inward being. Man as Bell mentions, “ already intuitively believe certain things about the universe and the way the world works” (077). Romans 1 defines this human knowledge in terms of “knowing but repressing” (or suppressing). This is at the core of human denial: the betrayal of what he knows to be true. Our job as “gospelizers”(a term I use to replace “evangelists,” which is too filled with modern American jargon) is to make this unwarranted denial known (much to say on this topic since it covers a host of remarkable apologetic interactions; I will leave it to future posts).

Truth is to be found everywhere. At the very moment the unbeliever speaks truth he is using what Van Til termed “borrowed capital.” All truth whether from the mouth of a Cretan or Barbarian is God’s truth since God’s knowledge and wisdom cover the seas (this is illustrated in Acts 17 among other places). Indeed, as Bell points out “the whole world is full of the kavod (glory) of God” (078). This scheme is nowhere clearer than in Bell’s illustration on Turkish culture (080). In it he describes his trip to Turkey where he saw many unfinished homes that seem to have been abandoned. As one of Bell’s friends noticed however, the abandonment was merely temporary. The Muslim culture “does not allow financial debt, so people only build with cash” (080). People do not continually borrow money to accomplish anything they desire (typical of Western thought) rather they wait and build slowly until they have all of it paid. A debt-free life means freedom in unspeakable ways. This is truth found in the Muslim-led country of Turkey taken directly form the mouth of the apostle Paul who said, “ owe no man anything” (Rom. 13). Issues regarding exceptions to this case are not the heart of the matter here; rather the principle in Scriptures and Muslim culture is that debt ought to be an aversion to us all. All truth is God’s truth, though sometimes we simply don’t want to hear it.

Velvet Elvis Embraced and Critiqued Part 2

Bell writes: “An Atheist is a person of tremendous faith. In our discussions about the things that matter most then, we aren’t talking about faith or no faith. Belief or no belief. We are talking about faith in what? Belief in what? The real question isn’t whether we have it or not, but what we have put it in” (019). Rob Bell affirms that which is explicitly denied in so many of our thinkers today. Modern science–like the rationalists of centuries ago–continually assumes that all their observations are bias-free. Bell corrects this foolish thinking process by denying that the atheist is belief-free. Even the most ardent of all atheists believes firmly in the absence of God. As he writes they are a people of “tremendous faith.” In fact, to believe in a Non-Being requires more faith than believing in a Being. Though I wish not to discuss it further it is sufficient to say that atheism in all its logical argumentation contra Christianity’s use of faith falls into the same dilemma.
How should we then live? For Rob Bell there are certain ways of living that seem to be more in line with the Christian message. He notes, “As a Christian, I am simply trying to orient myself around living a particular kind of way, the kind of way that Jesus taught is possible. And I think that the way of Jesus is the best possible way to live” (020). But what is Jesus’ way of living? Here are a few examples:
a) I am convinced being generous is a better way to live.
b) I am convinced forgiving people and not carrying around bitterness is better way to live.
c) I am convinced having compassion is a better way to live.

This is the way Bell believes Jesus would have him live. These are indeed noble ways of living. Christ does expect us to be generous, have compassion and so on. However, here Bell places certain areas of concern in a priority list. All of them deal with relationship with others. He is agenda-driven (as he would readily admit)! All of his concerns are merely relational. There is little to nothing about how this new Christianity should engage culture or politics or the new theological disputes of the day. This new way of living almost seems too exclusive. If other churches are not focusing on these issues that are of great concern to Bell, will he then attempt to correct them or will he find a way to implement new ideas into his new ideas? Ultimately, the point at stake is that all groups or communities must assume an identity that is at some level strong or even forcefully dogmatic about some issues and not so much on others. Rob Bell is no exception.

If the way Jesus wants us to live is to be “in tune with ultimate reality” (021) then Bell has made this ultimate reality in his own mind. Ultimate reality is not determined merely by how we live, but also by acknowledging what Bell so desperately seeks to undermine—the doctrinal necessity of Christ’s redemptive work as opposed to some reality that we need to mystically explore (more of this in another blog). This revelational act is clear and requires extreme commitment not sheer adherence. Bell senses that to be too strong on some ideas means that we cease to explore future discoveries by the church. But again I affirm, no one escapes from radical commitment to certain ideas; it just happens that Bell has some new ones. What if ten years from now a new movement rises exploring new possibilities of understanding doctrine and living with one another; will Bell be just as encouraged or will he tell his congregation to slow down a bit? Will new ideas inspire new ideas until one hundred years from now our creeds are nothing more than documents in museums? I am in no way denying Bell’s Christian faith, but I am questioning some of the consequences to his new Orthodoxy. In summary, there is much to embrace in terms of the mistaken views of bias-free thinking, but there is reason to be concerned with Bell’s ideas of what ultimate reality is and what it is not.

Part I

Velvet Elvis Embraced and Critiqued Part 1

Anyone who has recently entered into a Christian bookstore has come across a white-covered book with a simple and enticing title Velvet Elvis. At least if the younger generation is not enticed by the king’s lyrics, they will be captivated by the eccentricity of the book’s look and certainly the content. With 194 colorful pages with phrases that look like they are each a separate paragraph, Rob Bell articulates a new expression of the Christian faith. In much of the same way that others that preceded him have done (McLaren and others), Bell brings in each page a sense of newness that is certainly appealing to any reader who has experienced the betrayal of traditional church life.

Rob Bell states: “The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation” (p. 011). If the modern world is weary of a dead faith, then Rod Bell will likely succeed in this small treatise (not sure he would like that term). But is it true that Christianity has gone through change and growth and transformation? If anyone denies this process, it is likely that his mind is not in tune with this present world. Good change leads to growth and transformation; bad change leads to regression and sameness. Bell notes that “times change. God doesn’t, but times do.” Again this is certainly an accurate description of history. The God of all creation does not suffer change; He is the same forever and ever. His story, however, must change, must progress (think of the end of the Old Testament ceremonial laws) otherwise it is stagnant and the God of creation cannot demonstrate His greatness.

Rod Bell uses the example of Martin Luther and how he brought change in his generation. He “painted a new picture”, as Bell describes. Indeed Luther changed history and brought about a myriad of questions that still affect us 500 years later. Bell writes, “Luther was taking his place in a long line of people who never stopped rethinking and repainting faith.” This imagery sets up his premise that we must continue to repaint our faith in every generation so that God’s message is always speaking to all peoples at all times. This process he claims “hasn’t stopped. It can’t” (012). If that ever stops then it goes to the basement where Bell’s Velvet Elvis finds itself.

Where I Embrace and Where I Critique

So much of what Rob Bell offers is refreshing, challenging, and dangerous. Perhaps this is what makes it so intriguing. It is refreshing in that it reminds us in a new way of the Reformed motto: “Semper Reformanda,” always reforming. The church cannot stop and say we will stop learning; to do so implies it has reached its ultimate stage in history. Christ is still perfecting the church (Ephesians 5), enabling her to see her faults and blemishes. This means in many ways that the church needs to analyze their cherished beliefs not for the purpose of changing it but for the sake of reiterating its truths in different and more cogent ways. I have come across a host of critiques of Emergent Church leaders from the Reformed camp and many praises from the Reformed camp. If I agree with 99% of the criticism, I still find 1% of it beneficial or at least worthy of consideration. This little teaches me that truth is much more cosmic than our narrow perspectives.
Secondly, it is challenging because it forces us to ask new questions about God and the church. It is possible and probably true that any new question that may arise today may have already been asked sometime in God’s history, but if they have been forgotten it is worthy to bring them back to the forefront. In one sense it helps the pastor who has been preaching expository sermons for 40 years and has covered almost all the issues from Genesis to Revelation to consider a new set of questions he has never addressed. Further, it gives the church a broader understanding of our faith. Our faith exceeds a few doctrines, but it does not diminish them.

Finally, Velvet Elvis is dangerous. It appears that Bell finds little validity in Confessions and Creeds. If to explore the Trinity means having to redefine the Trinity or give it a new twist then I am highly skeptical. If the mere possibility of the Virgin Mary not actually being virgin is an idea that shouldn’t shatter our faith as Bell posits, then our Creeds can no longer claim authority in the Church catholic. To question the virgin birth is different than questioning Supra/Infralapsarianism. I could care less if I found out 10 years from now that I was wrong about the latter, but I would be deeply troubled, in fact skeptical about my faith if I discovered that the virgin birth was an early church hoax. There is a hierarchy of values just as there is a hierarchy of doctrinal values.

Our churches need new fresh applications to face their new fears and challenges. This is no time to begin shaking doctrinal stability; liberalism has already had its share. We need to emphasize loudly what needs to be emphasized and less loudly what is not so emphatic.

Brief Insights from The Da Vinci Code

200px-davincicode_us.png200px-davincicode_us.png200px-davincicode_us.png200px-davincicode_us.png200px-davincicode_us.pngThe Da Vinci Code is an artistic masterpiece according to some. Not only is it a nation-wide phenomenon as a novel, but unlike most novels it also assumes authenticity of its content. In the very first page we get a glimpse of its major premise: “All description of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This certainly intends to convey much more than a mere non-existing story, but a plot—indeed a plot to fool millions of naïve followers of the Christian faith.

Dan Brown is not only a masterful writer; he is also a remarkably talented apologist. Unfortunately, the apologetic involved in this novel is one that brings theological chills to those who wish to disagree with Mr. Brown. This is not a subtle attempt to undermine the Christian faith, but a striking and forceful attack on the Christian message. Indeed, Dan Brown knows the shallow thinking of church attendees and that they are open to just about any thing on the market that sounds reasonable. Perhaps this is the precise description of our American “Christian” culture. People are gullible to embrace anything and to be committed to nothing. Contemporary culture is replete with novels, but somehow this one seems to resonate a bit more with our culture (as the NYT testifies); but why? Because the fascination of the eager is also their demise. “Christian culture” if ever there is such a thing today in the US is fanatical about anything that sounds mystical and esoteric. Anything that will elevate their hopes for a new beginning or a new search will bring them to their philosophical knees. The culture at large, whether church –goers or blatant pagans have one thing in common, they are living for the moment. They desire something more than their well-built homes to satisfy them and something more than their Sunday Easter experiences with the local mega-church. Contemporary culture exists for phenomenon like The Da Vinci Code. It brings out what they have so longed for. It gives them a mystery to pursue, a story to follow in the hope that perhaps this one may work. And in case it doesn’t, well, there are many more to come. The contemporary culture lives seeking all, but grasping nothing; finding much, but feasting in nothing. As Jesus came into a culture prepared for and longing for a redeemer, so does Dan Brown’s fiction come into a culture prepared for and longing for a story; little do they know that Jesus is the story they have been wondering about from the day they were born.