Technically, this should go in the “The Latest” page of this blog.  It will, but only after I post it here.  I do this because few would actually re-check “The Latest” since I update it with such irregularity.

But for those of my friends who are curious about what’s going on in my life, I thought I’d write a few words.

A long time ago, when I only blogged on myspace, I shared that the one thing I needed was a secretary.  I’m horrible with paperwork.  I hate forms, applications, and various data I need to sign my name in compliance with.  This summer I had to find a job.  And becoming a teacher means doing a lot of what I’m worst at: doing paperwork.

Thankfully, Natalie eagerly helped me out.  I imagine that if she hadn’t been there with me in the last 3-4 weeks, I might’ve completed 3-5 successful applications to various school districts.  With her helping, I probably filled out and/or sent out about 15-20 total.  Her focus and diligence was incredibly inspirational to me.  She also collated, sorted, and edited like a pro, to make sure everything was just right.

So I got a job!  I’m going to become a teacher at Kentlake High School in the fall.  I had no expectation to be working in Kent over any other place in western Washington; but my education prepared me perfectly to work with that school.  I am so thankful to God for putting me in this position.  It was uncertain whether I’d even be able to work in Washington as an English teacher.  This is a huge blessing.

In other events, I’ve had a blast playing softball on the men’s church softball team.  Additionally, I’ve coached the co-ed singles team.  Both have been fun.  Three games a week is a blast.  I will miss it when it’s over.

Futher, Natalie and I have had some great times walking, eating, bicycling, reading, and a bit of canoing when my boat is inflatable (once so far).

I’ve also been able to get a good amount of hours working at Gap.

Did I mention I’ve earned my Teaching Credential?  It’s good to reach that goal.

I hope that God will use me the rest of this summer.  I don’t approach a season with the intention of planning things to have fun.  I want to be used.  I hope God uses me more before the summer ends.

The Gospel of A/C

For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition. For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.

1 Thessalonians 2:1-4

Apparently, a new stone has just appeared that comes from the Dead Sea area. While I have done nothing more than read an article about it, it sounded very interesting. It seems this stone relates to the Jewish concept of Messiah. Interestingly, it has been dated to the first century B.C. You can read more about it in a one page article here, a two page article here, or a three page article here.

Here are some noteworthy excerpts from the long article:

A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days…

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.

It is interesting to read some of the commentary these scholars are making about the text. But I thought this one was noteworthy to the point of humor.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

From whence cometh that dichotomy?

I thought we (conservative Christians) were the ones who create unnecessary binaries of either/or and not both/and! I guess we’re not the only ones.

How exactly is redemption supposed to occur without the shedding of blood for the sins of the people?

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13-14, NASB)

O Israel, hope in the LORD; For with the LORD there is lovingkindness, And with Him is abundant redemption. And He will redeem Israel From all his iniquities. (Psalm 130:7-9, NASB)

For those who are interested, Burchett has responded to my response about his response to people who responded negatively to The Shack here.

In this response, he is somewhat complimentary towards me.  But he I believe he twists what I said by characterizing it as such: “He decided that I am illogical, condescending and ignorant.” and “The writer assigned lots of motives to my heart that are simply not accurate.”  Regarding that, I simply would like to suggest that Burchett may have written things that didn’t make sense to me, but I never assumed that he was inherently that way.  Nor do I believe that I have know the “motives of his heart”.  While I did take issue with the text he wrote, I have no beef with him.

I posted a response that I felt would help add insight to the scenario at his blog.  But I would like to clarify that each one of his points in the aforementioned article are directed at people who “go against” or are inclined to “attack” “The Shack”.  This general tone of the article stands as a testament to which side he views as in need of “balancing”.   He gave no cautions to those who fully support the book.  Why not?  It seems those people are by far in the majority!

These leaves me curious as to his motives for writing that.  I think that conservatives who speak out are a much easier target.  That’s one of the main reasons I wrote the response I did.  I’m tired of seeing Christians speak out against other Christians who are holding fast to the light of the word, shining it on error, and shouting out from the mountains when there is a problem exposed.

Back to the matter at hand:

Burchett particularly seized on my taking him to task for encouraging people not to “dogmatically” tell people not to read the book.  But in his response, he clarified this by suggesting he would like to end “legalism” which has hurt so many Christians.  Now, dogmatism and legalism are two very different things.  Dogmatism is a strict adherence to a set of truths or dogmas; legalism is a strict adherence to a set of laws.  I believe Burchett is mistaken to conflate these two concepts.  Where legalism is concerned, the Bible encourages believers to recognize that all are sinners by nature who must rely on grace, not law-adherence, for salvation.

But in the case of dogmatism, there is no passage of Scripture that warns against strict adherence to truths revealed in Scripture.  In fact, quite the opposite is apparent throughout the NT, and particularly in  Pauline and Johanine epistles. I would counter Burchett by suggesting that a good remedy for legalism is a dogmatism that is based entirely, strictly, and unbendingly on the truths revealed in scripture.

Quite often in today’s evangelical discourse, it is proposed that it’s the relationship that matters (commonly called “grace”), and doctrine (sometimes misconstrued as “law”) is secondary to that relationship.  Therefore, Christians go wrong by placing one side-by-side with the other.  I would argue that the pattern of the Bible does exactly that, Ps 138:2 “I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.” (emphasis mine)

Actually, in Tim Challies’ review, we read this about the “Truth” vs “Relationship” paradigm in The Shack: “For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, ‘I understand what you’re saying. I did that for years after seminary. I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn’t know you. This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.’”

Men of God in the Bible such as Paul and Elijah went so far in their dogmatism that they mocked, disparaged, and condemned people who were adherents to and proponents of false ideas about God and distortions of his word.  Strict adherence to the truth is honoring to God.  There is no “grace” in manipulating, distorting, or ignoring essential attributes of himself which he has clearly revealed.

In his recent admonition, “A Gentle Balance to the ‘Shack Attack’” published at crosswalk.com, David Burchett gives several exhortations to people who don’t like the book “The Shack”.

Now I haven’t read the book.  But I’ve read enough (1, 2 (ok, saw that one), 3) reviews to know it’s not worth my time.  Prejudiced?  No.  I’ve just experienced enough to have very low expectations for it.

Back to this article.  Here are the main points:

Be careful about disparaging The Shack’s author, William P Young.

Be careful how you share your concerns with others.

Be prayerful about why this book has connected so surprisingly with millions.

Dogmatically telling people to not read the book may not be the best approach.

Don’t automatically decide you won’t read the book.

Be aware that God is doing just fine.

Acknowledge that there are the things this book does well.

Recognize the hunger in the world and even in the body of Christ.

The first two “Be careful” comments can be thrown out the door.  Of course, “careful” is only defined by what Burchett wants it to mean.  To him, it means not saying certain things that would dismiss the competency or veracity of the author and the book.  But those who disagree with the book are “careful” by examining the core ideas within and underneath the text to ascertain certain errors.  And it is very “caring” of them to share their “concerns” with others since it may prevent others from having a wrong view of God distort their thinking.  ::Addendum::  Let me say clearly that I don’t think there’s any need to disparage Young if that means arbitrary name-calling.  But if “spreader of bad doctrine” goes as “disparaging” than I think it’s ok.

The third command is based on the assumption that prayer and cognition are somehow at odds with each other.  It’s not enough to understand why the book is so popular; one must pray in order to have some sort of mystical conformity from God to grasp this unusual and mysterious phenomenon: that many people like this book.

I love the fourth comment, especially the use of “Dogmatically”.  Who doesn’t have a worldview?  Who’s worldview doesn’t guide what they think and how they respond to different kinds of ideas?  Even ignorance and apathy are a dogma.  Burchett simply doesn’t like dogma that goes against this book.  Don’t respond dogmatically?  Ok…well I’ll try.  But if I read the book, and I don’t like it, can I tell someone “caringly” that they shouldn’t read it?

#5 I’ll comply with this one.  Can I “discerningly” decide not to read it, though?

Six.  God IS doing just fine.  Which is why we don’t mess with him.  It’s good not to mess with gods who are all-knowing (including how people may be spreading heresy), all-powerful (capable of punishing those people), and doing just fine at that.  Furthermore, gods that expect worship in spirit and truth ought to be all the more submitted to in all holiness.  So how does that mean I should change my perspective on this book?

Last one, the “hunger” of the church.  This is like the “prayerful” one except less condescending.  But exactly how am I supposed to know what the exact needs of the church are?  Do I do a poll?  Or do I just assume that understanding the word of God is supposed to be the “daily bread” of the believer?  If this book distorts the word of God, am I supposed to encourage “hungry” Christians to read it since so many other Christians feel good about the book?

Nope.

I just love 1984:

War is Peace;

Freedom is Slavery;

Ignorance is Strength.

My friend Brian Aaby has just released his up and coming blog!  He’s my former youth pastor - but don’t hold that against him.  He’s a good guy!  I’ve never known a youth pastor who was so gifted from a program-based perspective, but who put even more importance on individual relationships.  Furthermore, he maintains a constant personal accountability to God’s word in his life and his teaching.  Expect much wisdom from Brian’s blog in the weeks, months, and years to come!

Check it out here!

]]>