Here’s a series of quotes I didn’t include in yesterday’s column at Speculative Faith, the finale to a five-part series called Imagination: for God’s glory and others’ good. It wasn’t included not only because of space, but because I had accidentally left the book at home.

This delves deeper into the reason why — based on Biblical proof, not opinion or pragmatism — Christians should not assume Jesus only spoke in direct-allegory parables.

That’s an assumption I’ve believed in the past. Debunking it has particular application for Christians who want to enjoy stories for God’s glory, or even write such stories themselves. Why? Because it helps us see past and reject the often-subconscious notion that any kind of story other than allegory is spiritually subpar.

[… F]or all their charm and simplicity, the parables have suffered a fate of misinterpretation in the church second only to Revelation.

The Parables in History

The reason for the long history of the misinterpretation of the parables can be traced back to something Jesus himself said, as recorded in Mark 4:10-12 (and parallels, Matt 13:10-13; Luke 8:9-10). When asked about the purpose of parables, he seems to have suggested that they contained mysteries for those on the inside, while they hardened those on the outside. Because he then proceeded to “interpret” the parable of the sower in a semi-allegorical way, this was seen to give license to the hardening theory and endless allegorical interpretations. The parables were considered to be simple stories for those on the outside to whom the “real meanings,” the “mysteries,” were hidden; these belonged only to the church and could be uncovered by means of allegory.

[…I ]t is extremely doubtful whether most of the parables were intended for an inner circle at all. In at least three instances Luke specifically says that Jesus told parables to people (15:3; 18:9; 19:11) with the clear implication that the parables were to be understood. Moreover, the “expert in the law” to whom Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) clearly understood it (vv. 36-37), as did the chief priests and Pharisees the parable of the tenants in Matthew 21:45. Their problem was not with understanding but with letting the parables alter their behavior!

If we have trouble at times understanding the parables, it is not because they are allegories for which we need some special interpretive keys. Rather it is related to some things we suggested in the previous chapter on the Gospels. One of the keys to understanding the parables lies in discovering the original audience to whom they were spoken; as we noted, many times they came down to the evangelists [that is, those men who wrote the Gospels] without a context.

If the parables, then, are not allegorical mysteries for the church, what did Jesus mean in Mark 4:10-12 by the mystery of the kingdom and its relationship to parables? Most likely the clue to this saying lies in a play on words in Jesus’ native Aramaic. The word methal, which was translated parabolē in Greek, was used for a whole range of figures of speech in the riddle/puzzle/parable category, not just for the story variety called “parables” in English. Probably verse 11 meant that the meaning of Jesus’ ministry (the secret of the kingdom) could not be perceived by those on the outside; it was like a methal, a riddle, to them. Hence his speaking in mathelin (parables) was part of the methal (riddle) of his whole ministry to them. They saw, but they failed to see; they heard—and even understood—the parables, but they failed to hear in a way that led to obedience.

[… N]ot all the sayings we label as parables are of the same kind. There is a basic difference, for example, between the Good Samaritan (true parable) on the one hand and the Yeast and the Dough (similitude) on the other, and both of these differ from the saying “You are the salt of the earth” (metaphor), or, “Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?” (epigram). Yet all of these can be found from time to time in discussions of the parables.

The Good Samaritan is an example of a true parable. It is a story, pure and simple, with a beginning and an ending; it has something of a “plot.” Other such story parables include the Lost Sheep, the Prodigal Son, the Great Banquet, the Workers in the Vineyard, the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the Ten Virgins.

The Yeast in the Dough, on the other hand, is more of a similitude. What is said of the yeast, or the sower, or the mustard seed was always true of yeast, sowing, or mustard seeds. Such “parables” are more like illustrations taken from everyday life that Jesus used to make a point.

Such sayings as “you are the salt of the earth” differ from both of these. These are sometimes called parabolic sayings, but in reality they are metaphors and similes. At times they seem to function in a way similar to the similitude, but their point—their reason for being spoken—is considerably different.

It should be noted further that in some cases, especially that of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-11; Matt 21:33-44; Luke 20:9-18), a parable may approach something very close to allegory, where many of the details in a story are intended to represent something else (such as in Augustine’s misinterpretation of the Good Samaritan). But the parables are not allegories—even if at times they have what appear to us to be allegorical features. The reason we can be sure of this has to do with their differing functions.

— from How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 149-152, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart (Zondervan, 2003).

Thus, because Jesus Himself never told only one type of story — allegory and nothing else — Christians need not feel they must hold other stories, even secular ones, to a higher standard.

We don’t need to insist that The Chronicles of Narnia are pure allegory, and if they are not (because their author said they were not) we simply don’t have as much “use” for the stories. And we don’t need to suspect that a fiction work such as The Lord of the Rings, which contains even fewer allegorical elements, is less useful or God-glorifying. Christ Himself doesn’t hold that standard. He can be glorified in many art forms and story genres, allegory and otherwise!

Author/pastor Tim Keller may be (and is) wrong about how Christians can accept evolution yet preserve the Gospel’s integrity. But there are equally wrong ways to address concerns about this compromise — methods of criticism that flaunt Scripture’s admonition to consider someone a false teacher only if he disregards the truths of the Gospel, just as much as Keller disregards Genesis.

More of the same dismissal of Scripture for the sake of Fixing a Problem won’t help.

Yes, even if it’s a real problem, as Biblical-creation-rejection is.

In Keller’s case, his viewpoint — which I would argue is based on simple ignorance of the issues — minimizes the truth of Genesis.

But in certain critics’ cases, their pushbacks against Keller minimize the truth of Scripture’s admonition to oppose false teachers only if they get the actual truth of the Gospel wrong. Missing or being confused about vital supporting doctrines, such as creation — as important as that is — is not the same as rejecting the Gospel itself.

This issue is flaring up further after Ken Ham, famous (or infamous) Answers in Genesis founder and creation-apologetics wonk, firmly yet carefully considered Keller’s recent restatement about his origins beliefs.

Tim Keller ( Senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan) again endorses evolution:  “Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in a historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve.”

You can read the entire sad article at:  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/06/06/sinned-in-a-literal-adam-raised-in-a-literal-christ/

And one can read Ham’s note, on Facebook, here. He goes on to list what a Christian evolution-acceptor must believe, then concludes:

It is so hard to understand why so many men of God who preach so solidly on God’s Word–as soon as it comes to Genesis in this era, they (like Tim Keller) are willing to give up their stand on the authority of Scripture and adopt a different hermeneutic for the sake of accommodating man’s fallible ideas (man’s religion) of millions of years and evolution.

Again, I emphasize–this is not a salvation issue but an authority issue.  Though in a sense it is a ‘salvation’ issue for the coming generations, as it affects they way they view Scripture, and thus could be a great detriment to them acknowledging their need of salvation as many are put on a slippery slide of doubt leading to unbelief in regards to the Word of God

We need to pray for people like Tim Keller, that the Lord will open his eyes to this glaring inconsistency in his compromise on God’s Word in Genesis.

(Boldface emphases added.)

In response, I expressed my appreciation for Ham’s commitment to Scripture, both in Genesis, and in how to correct a Christian brother when he’s wrong about an issue.

Ken, I appreciate your very gentle tone yet Biblical admonition to Tim Keller, and others, who are solidly Scriptural in every other area and are clearly Gospel-driven, and perhaps being protected by the Spirit from taking their evolution acceptance to its logical conclusion! Perhaps you, like me, have benefited from Keller’s books and ministry. Yet I echo your hope and suggested prayer that he would reconsider his views and practice consistent belief in Scripture’s authority when it comes to origins.

Because of Keller’s “city” emphasis, I wonder if he meets a lot of Christians from rural areas who have been taught to be six-day creationists, but only Just Because, and were not taught to think Biblically and defend their faith with reason. I wonder if that is why he wishes to push back against that — but has only rejected a weaker, illogical form of just-so creation belief. Yes, I know that does exist, but isn’t advocated by AiG at all.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on that, and perhaps on the broader topic of Christians who do accept Biblical creation (thank God!) but don’t know why, and are therefore vulnerable.

[...]

Keller did give some good reasons for accepting that Adam was a historical person, anyway. That prompted blogger Frank Turk to link to the review over Twitter and comment: “Let’s see if his friends at BioLogos post this at their website.” But still — [Keller is] inconsistent.

Again, I’m quite sure it’s because Keller has encountered former literal-Biblical-creation believers who were taught what to think, but not how to think, which is unfortunately a persistent problem. But he’s overcorrected for it.

Then came the critic, who — though writing somewhat restrained, compared to some cyber-zealots I’ve seen! — exclaimed this:

“Tim Keller is certainly not a man of God. We need to stop treating these men with kid gloves and kick them out of the Church if they do not repent of their sin. I do not care how good they can preach. Any man who denies Genesis is not of God, he is what paul [sic] calls ‘An Apostle of Satan’.”

My response to this critic:

@Malcolm: No, I prefer Ken’s approach. Keller has shown he is solid on the Gospel, and has (so far) not compromised on that to be more consistent with his compromise on Genesis. Belief in Biblical creation is not what saves. AiG has been clear on that. Yet Malcolm, I fear that with your statement you’d give some credence to the common slander that AiG and Biblical creation-believers claim “you must believe our version of creation, along with the Gospel, to be saved.” Don’t add to the Gospel.

Keller and others like him are solid in the faith where it counts. Where they err is in the areas that the Church has forsaken for too long. AiG is opposing real, disgusting compromise where it counts, and knowing when to gently admonish rather than simply yelling at everybody. Let’s discern better how to discern and take into account real ignorance contrasted with overt truth-rejection.

Addendum: Paul didn’t condemn people who messed up on Genesis (as vital as that is) as servants of Satan and heretics. However, he did have strong words against those who equated their own favorite add-ons with the importance of the Gospel.

Genesis is my favorite add-on too. So is belief in a literal, future, physical New Earth. Both are essential for growing in Christ. Yet one can be saved, despite disbelief in both, even if they miss out for a while on the blessings of understanding how God created the world just as He said in Genesis, and how He will restore the world to that paradise. Don’t condemn where God has not condemned. But I also hope that such folks will see their own inconsistencies and thereby be able to grow more in truth.

What do you think?

(Catch up with the start of this series Answering [Bill] Gothard defenders, part 1.)

More questions for ‘Anonymous’

Alas, should have known one of the above comments had a delay in appearing. Anonymous, if you’re still about, it seems I answered your latter points first. But perhaps it was better that way — those seemed to be more important.

Argumentum ad hominem?

Yes, the cover is a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" reference.

I do note, joining some of the others here, that you haven’t attempted to show why I’m wrong according to Scripture, which is something I would be more eager to hear if indeed I’ve missed something. Rather, questioning-the-source and he’s-a-nice-man just aren’t fitting defenses — especially when you’re inconsistently forgetting to do the same with me. Again, I’ll go through, hoping to offer firm yet friendly suggestions for things you might have missed, not just because I’m a Nice Guy, but because the truth of Scripture is at stake here.

1. Quoting from the article “Taliban Dan:. . .” by Sarah Posner, hardly gives this author credibility. Sarah Posner writes for RD (Religion Dispatches). Here’s a bit from their “About Us” page:

“Religion Dispatches is an online magazine devoted to exploring the intersections of religion, values, and public life, nationally and globally. It aims to provide a platform for expert, critical exploration of religion in the contemporary world for a general readership. The goal of RD is to inform public debate by analyzing and critically engaging the role of religion and values on the most vital issues of our time. This will involve bringing a wider spectrum of perspectives into the conversation, especially voices that have been marginalized in most media, and increasing attention to progressive expressions of religion and values.”

This is not a publication aimed at glorifying God—simply analyzing (from a worldly perspective) religion and it’s affect on society.

I knew that already. But that does not mean Gothard isn’t responsible for saying what he said, which denied what Scripture was really saying. In my column, I did allow for the possibility that Gothard said more than what was quoted. However, regardless of her intent, that reporter pricked him, and he failed to bleed Gospel. He also directly contradicted what Jesus was saying about “the servant of all.” This had nothing to do with women secretly ruling the world through “submission.” What He said had everything to do with His male disciples leading through servanthood of others, emulating His own humility, becoming lower than all so that He might later be exalted above all (Philippians 2).

2. Sarah Posner also writes for The American Prospect, among other publications. The American Prospect is, according to the Google description: a “Monthly magazine covering politics, culture, and policy from a liberal perspective.

Is guilt-by-association a Biblical way to discern?

I checked through the article to see if its author treated all Christians that way. Surprisingly, she didn’t. Witness the quotes from other Christians, Don Veinot and Ronald B. Allen, whose rebuttals to Gothard are repeated fairly. They’re not being attacked along with Gothard simply because all claim to be Christian. The author, though admittedly a liberal, is fair. To follow an ad hominem approach without (or even before) dealing with the actual material is neither Biblical nor fitting here.

‘He’s only human’: not an excuse for not discerning

3. Of course there’s going to be sin in the camp—Bill Gothard is human, as are those women and men writing and blogging.

My objection is not to the presence of any “sin in the camp” (Old Testament metaphor) or whining about how Bill Gothard Should be Perfect and Isn’t. My objection to his, and many of his followers’, steady pattern of twisting Scripture to fit spiritual, moralistic Systems, and trusting some unknown Other (if even that) to take care of all that trifling Gospel stuff.

I know some of these women. By and large, they are writing under their husband’s oversight, and have no overt desire for power over others (as in the pyramid scheme model mentioned.)

That’s good to know. Yet in this case, then, it’s Anecdote versus Anecdote: your Anecdote that some women are indeed “submitting” from the heart, while others say they have known women who do it the exact opposite. Rock versus rock — no one wins. Thus my primary objection was not anything like “all women who claim to believe this are hypocrites” (although that’s true in too many cases to be coincidence). My primary point was instead: Gothard himself is inconsistent with his own profession to believe the Gospel, and has twisted this Scripture.

If they are out from under authority, perhaps those select individuals are in sin. By casting the stone does this author assume his own sinlessness?

This is a misapplication of the John 8 passage about the woman caught in adultery (itself a matter of some debate!). Even if accepted as part of the original book of John, this in no way overthrows Christ’s and the apostles’ commandments to be discerning, even if they themselves are not perfect. The apostle Paul knew of his flaws, yet opposed the apostle Peter “to his face” because Peter was clearly in the wrong (Galatians 2).

The presence of sin does not invalidate a ministry. It simply makes that ministry a product of humanity, like every other.

This is a straw man, Anonymous, though my guess is that you didn’t mean it. Your assumption that I’ve argued “Gothard / anyone else sins, thus we reject them” is flawed. Read the above for a reminder of the true reason I objected. And a true believer, even who is accomplishing good ministry elsewhere, should want to seek gracious correction and change accordingly. Sorry, “we all sin” is no excuse. God’s Word calls all believers to seek holiness in the Spirit, even if we are not actually perfect until the resurrection and New Earth.

If this premise were valid, we would have to disestablish or debunk every Christian institution in existence.

Fortunately, no one here has argued that premise; it exists only in your perception. I do wonder, though, why is it that you have (by accident, I’m sure!) “projected” an expectation of perfect teaching on others here?

Twisting Scripture: the real issue

4. The author admits he doesn’t know the rest of the quote.

And has also clarified to say that Gothard here not only missed some other trivial, optional teaching about how Christ is actually the greatest Servant — Gothard actively said something opposite. Even if he scrambled to cover up later, that would have been a self-contradiction as well as a Scripture contradiction. Let us not argue from silence either way. The fact remains: Gothard was pricked, and failed to bleed Gospel. This is understandable for a “baby Christian.” For a popular Christian leader, an elder, it’s inexcusable.

Being a published author, I know that it is dangerous to pull out random quotes from arbitrary sources. That’s just plain poor journalism.

Quite an accusation there. Refer to the above about Gothard’s overt contradiction to Scripture, regardless of whether he corrected himself later. Prove he did do that in that interview, and I’ll issue a correction. The only real objection that could be made is that I’ve misunderstood what he said about women being the real top dogs on Earth because of all their “submission.” So far I haven’t seen that defense attempted.

5. I have spoken with Bill Gothard, and he is not the man this author represents him to be. Of course if you call him on the phone and put him on the spot about a particular issue, and then isolate his comments, you can misrepresent any person in any desired light.

How he speaks in person and whether he is a Nice Guy is irrelevant. I’m sure Joel Osteen, Bart Ehrman and many others are very decent fellows — that doesn’t rule out them being false teachers who need correction.

Another straw man, though: I did not say he’s a rude chap, based on that interview. I said he twisted Scripture. Still that point has not been addressed. As for “it was taken out of context” type defenses, show me the real context, what exactly I’ve misread, to strengthen that charge.

I have friends who know this man well, and know him to be humble, winsome, caring, and personable. He is human and fallible, but no power monger or mind controller.

Again, My Anecdote versus Other People’s Anecdotes. Rock doesn’t beat Rock. I haven’t argued with Anecdotes. But Paper — Scripture — beats everything in this little game. Gothard twisted Scripture. Sadly, game over — unless he were to repent and change. Even more sadly, this has been a pattern.

What he knows of husband-wife relationships and parenting, he knows from extensive study of scripture—a pretty reliable source.

Twisting of Scripture, ignoring simple hermeneutics and the Gospel narrative, as demonstrated in this column, on this site and in other sources (available upon request).

The very sentiment they quote—they mention that he laughed—being light hearted about it—that was his way of trying to lift up a segment of humanity that is often trodden on.

That is only opinion, and again, another Anecdote that doesn’t apply. Lifting up the Downtrodden is a great sentiment — just like Following Authorities or Respecting Your Parents. But do NOT lift these things above the most Downtrodden One of all, the Greatest Servant. Gothard did that, and it was stepping out from under the “umbrella” of Christ’s authority.

Not because he puts any emphasis on that idea, but because he was called and cornered with a specific question about this topic.

Another opinion, which I do hope you’ll revise — not offering Alternate Interpretations or Anecdotes, but showing, from Scripture itself, what I might have gotten wrong and how Gothard is actually right that “being a servant of all” is more about women’s submission than about all Christ’s disciples and especially Christ Himself.

Though I know these latest comments of mine have carried a more-firm demeanor, I still mean them in love and caution, and wish we had the chance to discuss these matters more personally and with a background of relationship and trust in other ways.

YeHaveHeard has been branching out.

Late last month my feature column Bill Gothard and Patriarchy: Re-routed Feminism? appeared on Quivering Daughters. That prompted much discussion about Christian homeschooling/ “character first” teacher Bill Gothard’s public pronouncement that Jesus’ the-greatest-among-you-must-be-the-servant-of-all statement means “that makes the woman the greatest of all because she has served every single person in the world by being in her womb.”

An excerpt, before getting to a few responses to critics (most of them from anonymous):

Perhaps [Gothard] said more, which isn’t shown, about Christ being the greatest Servant, Whom both men and women honor in the ways they serve one another. But if not, he rejected a prime opportunity to point to the Savior his organization claims to follow. Instead he pointed to humans, and to women in particular as in effect the world’s secret rulers — something Christ never meant whenever He taught on true servanthood.

Three passages in Scripture contain Jesus’ reminder that if one wishes to be truly great, he must become the servant of all: Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9:33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48.

In each account, of apparently the same dialogue about seeking servanthood as true greatness, Christ was speaking to His disciples. They were men. Women aren’t mentioned. He used a trusting child’s conduct as an example of true humility. Mark 9:37: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” And in Luke 9:48 He adds, “For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

What are the contexts here? Not gender roles. Not family. Not which gender should serve the most in a human way and thus be greatest. Jesus is pointing to Himself. These passages are about Him. And later, from the minor gift of washing His followers’ dirty feet to His earth-shaking, epic death on a cross for the salvation of His people, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sin — He proved Himself the One Who saves us, changes us, the Servant of all.

This exegesis shows Gothard’s view to be in flagrant error. But unfortunately this is not unusual for him — Gothard has often proved that salvaging Scripture verses and principles, out of context, is certainly not a practice limited to liberals or emergents.

What might have been equally disappointing, though, is that his defenders in the column didn’t even try to prove he was right.

Instead I read some of the same defense mechanisms I’d heard before, such as:

1. He’s a nice guy.
2. Have you tried to talk with him personally? (Implied: that is required, before you say anything negative.)
3. We’ve followed his teachings and we’re doing find (therefore our Anecdote simply surpasses yours).
4. Various ad hominem attacks against other Gothard critics, either real or perceived.
5. Gothard uses Bible verses in his teachings; therefore he’s touching Base and shouldn’t be questioned.
6. (Implied) Hmm, you must be one of those Christians who doesn’t believe in trying to live a holy life.
7. A derivative of the Gamaliel Game, a frequent (and fatalistic!) defense, based on Acts 5: 33-40, which in essence says “if he’s a bad guy, just ignore him and let God handle it.” Scripture neither condemns nor endorses Gamaliel’s specific advice in that passage, but certainly does elsewhere contradict the notion that Christians should just ignore false teachers!

Part 1 will consist of my response to Anonymous’ second batch of well-written questions. Part 2 will show my response to his/her actual first portion of questions and responses, which had initially been hidden by the site’s spam filter.

Responses to Anonymous

Thanks for stopping by, yet-another-Anonymous. Like most online-only conversations in which I engage, I wish we had the time and ability to add some semblance of relationship as the basis of our interactions, rather than the drive-by-debating common to the internet. Shall we imagine a brief visit between you, and my wife and I, in our living room with coffee or your beverage of choice, as I try to address your concerns?

6. Simply because the author of the article “Taliban Dan…” omits any reference to Bill Gothard teaching about walking in the good works God has created us for or honoring God with our lives does not mean that Bill Gothard (just a sinful, fallible instrument) omits them in his teaching.

From my experience with Gothard’s programs, I recall very little Gospel. This error is not unique to Gothard, but to many Christian leaders: they simply assume their followers/disciples will get that Gospel-of-Grace stuff out there somewhere, and can now move on to the “walking in good works” stuff without emphasis in the work Christ accomplished for us.

I don’t share that (often well-intentioned) perspective. A lover of Christ will be doing all he can (knowing God is at work in him — Philippians 2: 12-13) to preach the Gospel to Himself, living in light of what Christ has done and will do, not keeping that in the past and moving on to the supposedly more-important truth of walking in good works. Grace, as Gothard defines it, does include the power to obey God, but that is not the most important definition. Gothard in practice acts as thought it is.

We used the ATI curriculum for 12 years, and chose to get out—not with some personal vendetta against Bill Gothard and the program—but simply because God was leading us to other things—further training for His Kingdom.

Neither do I have a personal vendetta. But those who purport to teach the Bible should be held to high standards. While quoting verses, setting up systems purported to be based on truth, etc., are they applying right hermeneutics? Respecting God the Author of Scripture by reading and understanding it rightly?

The curriculum was full of scripture, and full of teaching about honoring God, His established authorities, and our fellow man.

I’ve shown above how Gothard severely twisted a single Scripture to make it man- (or woman-) centered, instead of echoing the deeper truth Christ was clearly teaching. Unless the reporter was making up that quote, Gothard is guilty of abusing the Word of God, not like a naive “baby Christian” but as a Christian leader.

In saying this, I take what he said at face value: he believes women are the greatest because they “serve” the most. That’s just not Biblical. Jesus was talking not to women, but to His own (male) disciples, saying they should strive to be the servant of all — and He Himself showed them how, and became the Servant of All, exalted over all: men and women.

Gothard is guilty of salvaging other Scriptures to further other goals, and that is wrong, no matter how Biblical those goals might be (such as Opposing Rebellion or Reminded us of Authority). Gothard’s woefully wrong reading of the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s son, for example, is a flagrant violation of how Scripture should be read: emphasizing Christ, as the narrative does, and not simply the Human Authority Structure.

The program was, as accused, full of steps, also, toward success in various aspects of Christian living. Some view this approach to problem solving as legalistic

Some might, but that’s not what I argued above. Similarly, Jesus faulted the Pharisees not merely for solving moral problems in step-by-step ways, but for making up laws and calling them God’s Law, and rejecting the point of the Law anyway: Christ Himself.

but others (and it’s just as valid a perspective) view the step method (merely breaking a problem into bite-sized pieces) as helpful.

Ordinarily I would agree. This would simply be seen as optional methods for doing our part, as Christians, to work out our salvation. But again, two issues:

a) Gothard doesn’t see these steps as optional. He calls them “life principles” and has continued to do this day to say they’re not optional.

b) The steps are often not only extra-Biblical (optional) but anti-Biblical. And adding to what Scripture says and calling it Scripture is just as bad as ignoring what Scripture does say.

Grace-oriented individuals should be careful not to condemn those who prefer a more structured approach.

Whether structured or not, all Christians are called to be grace-oriented individuals. That part is indeed not optional!

And whether or not a parent/person has a specific “structured approach,” if it’s not based in grace, it’s not Gospel-minded — and would warrant a Galatians-style letter from the Apostle Paul asking with love but passion: “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Or he would write a letter repeating what he told the Colossians (in 3: 20-23) about wrong, anti-Biblical “structures”:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—’Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Neither is more righteous as long as both look to Christ as THE problem-solver and THE SOLUTION.

Which, as I’ve argued above, Gothard in-practice and even in-writing does not do.

However, perhaps you, most excellent Anonymous, were able to take what you found good about Gothard’s materials and see them through the lenses of God’s grace. If so, I rejoice! Yet I would ask that you recognize that others have not been so blessed, and are trapped on a graceless treadmill, trying to earn their sanctification through Gothard’s anti-Biblical materials. IBLP does not seem their whole System of beliefs as optional as you and I might see them, free to choose which ones to follow — or even to depart the whole thing and find better curriculum elsewhere.

7. It is simply Ungodly to undermine parents in trying to “rescue” daughters from what we perceive to be an oppressive lifestyle.

I don’t oppose that. Are you referring to something I wrote?

In fact, it’s a main mission of Quivering Daughters here to help carry out such rescues, of daughters who are trapped in not only what’s “perceived” to be an oppressive lifestyle, but what is — according to the Gospel, aided by sanctified common sense! — oppressive and grace-rejecting lifestyles. To see this further, I encourage you to look more on the site, and perhaps read Hillary’s book Quivering Daughters and Don Veinot’s book A Matter of Basic Principle: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.

You see, the God of the universe gave each daughter her parents and each wife her husband. If we are willing to cease trying to give God and Ishmael, and trust Him (Jer. 29:11), He will complete his unstoppable plan of mercy and grace in the ultimate manner.

But the sovereign God works through means, Anonymous. He has given and encouraged (nay required) Christians to practice discernment, rather than being more passive (a la Gamaliel in Acts) and simply let things happen. Should we also apply the more-passive mindset to the pressing issues of our day, such as sex trafficking, racism or abortion? Surely not. Scripture doesn’t leave Christians with that option — though some of us may have different callings in this.

As an aside, I hear Jeremiah 29:11 quoted a lot, but out of context: that promise God made to the Israelites then is weakened when we apply it straight to ourselves without the background that He fulfilled it for them. Furthermore His perfect plans for them also involved plenty of hardship and learning from the ways they had rejected Him — only through better discernment and growth did they have “hope and a future.”

When we interfere in order to help him, we just mess things up.

Again, the point here is not simply reaching out to women (or anyone) who’s in a merely “perceived” oppressive lifestyle, but showing how this lifestyle is not only dangerous, but flagrantly anti-Biblical and not actually honoring to Christ and the Gospel.

8. When we are on the outside looking in to a situation, we make a lot of assumptions. My old English teacher used to say “To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.” Wouldn’t the Christian way be to spend our hours and days spreading the good news of the gospel and discipling young believers in a God-honoring way to aid in their sanctification instead of devoting entire ministries to breaking down or attacking the ministries of those we don’t understand (and thereby are suspicious of)?

Again, if you are referring to Quivering Daughters, I would ask:

a) Then why are you trying to oppose this ministry? Perhaps you don’t yourself understand what they see, what they know, and to whom they’re reaching. The problem with a Gamaliel-like “if it’s of God you can’t stop it anyway” notion is that it can’t be suggested consistently without self-refuting, and it’s not what Scripture says to follow anyway.

b) Yet again, these are about whether a professed Christian and supposedly Biblical organization is actually following Christ and the Bible. I’ve shown above how Gothard has violated both (as is a proven pattern in how he salvages other Scriptures to fit into moralism machines). If you’d like to engage my ideas in that area, Anonymous, I’d love to listen and reply.

Where is the glory for God in a ministry like this?

The glory to God is the same as Paul gave when he publicly opposed Peter for sucking up to legalistic Judaizers (Galatians 2) or called out a professing Christian for anti-Biblical behavior (1 Corinthians 5) or, in love, warned believers to avoid false doctrine and grow to be like Christ with all truth and discernment (Philippians 1, many other epistles). The God of love is also a God of truth, and a Christian’s discernment can be practiced with love and hope that the deceptive teacher will repent and correct his false teaching.

I know God has used others to correct my own wrong notions about “perfect” families, and even what the future eternal existence of a Christian will be (hint: it’s not just a spiritual nonphysical realm!). Thus I hope also that those professing to believe the Gospel of grace will speak and listen to one another accordingly, not making or hearing arguments based on man-made logic or inference from Scripture, but based on Scripture rightly applied, pointing to the Gospel.

Grace and peace!

New just this week: this is a fantastic video from SalvationByGrace.org, in which Jim McClarty asks about the common understandings of the most popular verse among modern Christians.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

That’s John 3:16. Have you heard it? Do you know it? Did you learn it in Sunday school? And what were you told it means?

I can’t tell you how many preachers I’ve heard say that John 3:16 is “the whole of the Gospel in a single verse.” And so they end up reading the rest of the Bible through the lens of John 3:16, and more importantly through the lens of what they assume John 3:16 must mean.

Well I received an email today, from a fellow asking if I’d be willing to make a short video about John 3:16. Because, he said, whenever he presented the doctrines of grace to a friend or a co-worker or a family member, when he got to the point of saying that God was sovereign in salvation, they would invariably run to John 3:16 and say:

“But John 3:16 says whosoever will, or whosoever believes! So doesn’t that mean that anybody that wants to can simply choose to believe? Isn’t that where free will comes into play? Can’t anyone choose Jesus, believe on Him and then receive everlasting life? Isn’t that what John 3:16 means? I mean, after all, if God so loved the whole world, everybody in the world, everybody that ever lived — if He loved them that much that He would give His only begotten Son, then doesn’t He make His son available to whoever wants to believe? I mean, that’s what John 3:16 says, right?”

No. Not actually. John 3:16 is not in conflict with Reformed theology. In fact, John 3:16 works very nicely in our understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation. But so, so often that verse is pulled from its context. There is no exegesis applied to the verse, and then people assume its meaning. and once you do that, tradition takes over, and people read John 3:16 through the lens of the tradition that says, Every man has an option, has a will, has a choice, and God loves absolutely everybody and He really wants everybody to be saved; so please, just choose Jesus!

Does God do all things solely for love? Is it wrong to confront a non-Christian with the Law?

Should Christians angrily say others aren’t saying enough about God’s love? Did Christ die for love-as-ultimate-virtue?

And are some who say such things guilty — as all Christians are, to some extent! — of salvaging Scripture in favor of a spiritual System?

That seems the main question , underlying all the others, and the subject of ongoing discussion after last week’s column on Speculative Faith, Refuting universalism slanders of C.S. Lewis, part one.

Hello again, Derek — I will try to give some rebuttals and thoughts below.

Yet first, I must also note [...] that for a guy who talks a lot about God’s love, I don’t see a whole lot of that directed toward Christians who also read and seek understanding from the verses that do, indeed, say that the Lord is holy and just and indeed does all things to glorify Himself. Shouldn’t those who are pushing more of God’s “love” show that as much as talk about it?

Secondly, I shan’t try much to defend Todd Friel. He can be annoying. But so can a lot of Christians in this wild thing we call the Church. In the past several months I’ve had in-depth discussions with professing Christians who

a) lied about C.S. Lewis and Narnia,
b) insisted that “turn the other cheek” means letting a battered wife suffer and only pray for God to make the abuser repent,
c) lied about them Calvinists, saying they believed doctrines of demons, blah blah blah (whether you like TULIP or not, that’s just more slander — and yes this was the same guy who promoted letter a).

And yet all of them just might be saved anyway, if they adhere to the essentials of the Gospel. No one should “joke” otherwise just because we happen to disagree with them personally, or even if they still have active addictions or sins (such as to reactionary, System-based conspiracy theories) that are ultimately the Spirit’s job to rout out.

So let’s move past My Guys versus Your Guys, or what-have-you, and might we also move past the argument-from-outrage? You used that a lot in your response, but it’s ineffective against anyone who hasn’t already been persuaded by better means to believe as you do. I could use argument-from-outrage to “prove” anything: man didn’t land on the Moon, God isn’t real at all, it’s “unloving” for God to send anyone to Hell for any duration with or without some “second chance,” etc.

Instead, therefore, I’ll just keep asking you: have you been reading the Bible in a way that respects its authors and Author? Or have you — most Christians do, and I know I have, so there’s no greater shame in it! — read it to salvage for parts for other stories, or else spiritual Systems?

[...]

[W]hat you believe and or I believe and whether it Sounds Sensible is irrelevant here. The fact is that you haven’t attempted to prove your beliefs with Scripture and have wrongly accused me of elevating one Biblical truth over another or trying to find some Secret Knowledge. And yet your continual rejection of the idea that God to this day maintains righteous wrath against the unrighteous — offering a System supposedly supra Romans — is itself elevating one truth, in a System, above others.

A few other issues: yes, I’ve often heard the whole “you’re like the Pharisees” angle. Please do some checking into Scriptures such as Mark 7 and find the real reason Jesus couldn’t get through to the Pharisees. The bad ones didn’t give one crap about the real God’s honor, but hijacked God’s real Law and even made up their own in place of it. The Pharisees were all Law and no love, and that was their problem is the common view only because of repetition and propaganda, but doesn’t match Scripture.

I shan’t belabor that point here, though, only point you to God’s Law and Jesus’ Love at my nonfiction site if you sincerely wish to be challenged by an opposing view that actually shows that God’s real love is far greater than you’d say.

(Excerpt from a lengthy rebuttal comment on Feb. 8 on Speculative Faith. Read the rest of it.)

Yet another potential reason not to care about the Big Game this year: they banned a potential commercial by a Christian group called LookUp316.com. Of course, Fox officials also (again) refused to allow an adultery-endorsing website to air their ad, so I suppose if I had to choose, I’d prefer rejection of both rather than allowing each one.

Here’s the commercial, which now will only air on the internet and become popularized by curious/critical bloggers, such as myself. Actually, there’s nothing to criticize here. The ad is very straightforward. Meant to get you to think, and check out the website — nothing more.

And it doesn’t need to do anything more. If God can inspire entire books of the Bible, with the only goal of fitting into the greater story and pointing ahead to Christ, without mentioning Him or the Gospel explicitly, one can’t fault a 30-second spot for not giving the entire Roman Road.

So I naturally hoped that more information would be available at LookUp316.com, especially the simple explanation for what John 3:16 means.

And it’s mostly good. No heresy here; no false teaching. I wasn’t hoping to find any. For such an opportunity as this — with or without actual Super-Bowl-commercial airtime — I yearn for Christians to gather together enough resources, creativity and gumption and preach the Gospel in new venues. And what is there on this group’s page is enough Gospel to get one saved.

Still I wonder: we’re already telling people about sin that keeps us from God — so why not also say first that all sinners have offended, first and foremost, God Himself, and secondly others?

The root of our troubles is that each of us tends to do what we want to rather than what we ought to.  This is true for everyone, the best and the worst of us.  It is a kind of “law” rooted in human nature.  Every human being at some point “drops the ball” and causes trouble for others.

Sin absolutely is in our nature, and it causes trouble for others. Yet the far worse problem is that we have “together […] become worthless” and fallen “short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:12, 23). That’s a far more serious problem than simply dropping the ball ¹. And LookUp316.com does give that crucial Gospel truth later:

Worse still, we have all wronged God.

Amen! And that’s more than many Christians would say. I just wonder, perhaps, if that should have gone first — if a Gospel presentation must start with God’s majesty, holiness and love, and then contrast what we desire: to use God for other ends, hating Him, and also hurting others.

But regardless, someone could still get saved from the Gospel at LookUp316.com. Thank God they’re out there — even if not airing during the actual Super Bowl / Big Game.

I just hope that not all Christians will try to be the “good cop” and avoid the tougher parts of the Gospel, for at least three reasons:

• Reason 1: I’m sure gracious-but-firm street preacher types can grow tired of always playing bad cop. They could use some backup from the more-popular kinds of Christians, in the public eye. And speaking for myself: I could use this, too.
• Reason 2: It often doesn’t work anyway. Not even Joel Osteen, as hard as he tried on the Piers Morgan (Larry King 2.0) program, could avoid hatred when, despite all his smiles and backpedaling, he dared to say Scripture teaches against homosexuality.
• Reason 3: Jesus Himself was both good cop and bad cop. He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven and the glory of His Father. He also talked about tougher topics such as Hell and the fact that sin is primarily an offense against God’s holy standards.

And yet two facts relating to all this: some Christians repent mainly for their sins against others and are perfectly saved and in the faith — and only later grow to learn the magnitude of their rebellion against God, and thus rejoice even more and thank Him for their salvation.

And yet other professing Christians, once they find out the God-is-holy part, want nothing to do with Him. That’s not my God, they say, wanting only a God Who saves from hurt from Out There and not evil from inside their hearts. And off they go, seeking that elusive God Who is somehow just but doesn’t care as much about their heart-generated sin, and aren’t in the faith.

So is it wrong to leave out the tougher parts of the Gospel? Or for those Christian evangelists who know the tough parts and understand them, and can articulate them winsomely to nonbelievers — are they required to tell the tougher truths of the Gospel the first time around?

Last week I reviewed the mystical, actual-Bible-quenching (despite good motives, that’s the sobering result) devotional Jesus Calling, a top-ten Christian bestseller of last year.

This week I found myself agreeing with rightful criticism of C.S. Lewis for not taking the Biblical reason for Christ’s atonement seriously enough. But then came wrongful criticisms of Lewis with charges of “heretic” and lies claiming he was a universalist, that Narnia is not only allegory but anti-Biblical allegory, and all kinds of other myths and even intentional-ignorant deceits — all of which apply horrible hermeneutics both to what Lewis wrote, and even to what God wrote.

And this morning I’d flipped again, writing on NarniaWeb about how we don’t need to insist Lewis — or much less, the mostly horrible Voyage of the Dawn Treader movie scriptwriters — was actually inspired in the same way as Scripture to enjoy their works.

Why treat His actual revealed Word so casually? How do you think Jesus feels about that? Your Word isn’t sufficient, Lord — I think I’ll go find more from a devotional, or a poorly written movie script … And if you doubt that the script was not only poorly written but horribly flawed in its “theology,” not only compared with the Bible but with the Dawn Treader story itself, I can explain that here, or point to other threads.

Naturally, the perfect supplement to this common argument in favor of the actual Word of God’s power and sufficiency for our every need is a perfect song by artist Sara Groves.

Her lyrics here are not inspired like the Bible. They don’t need to be, to point us back to truth. Her words also don’t need to be absolutely, 100-percent-written-like-a-creed-or-confessional perfect, to move us back to the actual revealed Word of God. Yet thank God for her wisdom.

I’ve done every devotional,
Been every place emotional,
Trying to hear a new word from God;
And I think it’s very odd
That while I attempt to help myself,
My Bible sits upon the shelf
With every promise I could ever need.

And the Word was,
And the Word is,
And the Word will be.

And the Word was,
And the Word is,
And the Word will be.

People are getting fit for truth
Like they’re buying a new tailored suit:
“Does it fit across the shoulders?
Will it fade when it get older?”
We throw ideas that aren’t in style
In the Salvation Army pile,
And search for something more to meet our needs.

And the Word was,
And the Word is,
And the Word will be.

And the Word was,
And the Word is,
And the Word will be …

(The old Word is the new Word is the old Word is the new Word …)

I think it’s time I rediscover
All the ground that I have covered
Like “Seek ye first” — what a verse!
“We are pressed but not crushed,
Perplexed but don’t despair,”
“We are persecuted but not abandoned”
“We are no longer slaves; we are daughters and sons”
“And when we are weak we are very strong”
And “neither death nor life nor present nor future nor depth nor height can keep us from the love of Christ”!

And the Word I need
Is the Word that was,
Who put on flesh to dwell with us
In the beginning!

And the Word was!
And the Word is!
And the Word will be

And the Word was!
And the Word is!
And the Word will be …

Continued from part 1: a review, with careful questions, of Sarah Young’s bestselling Jesus Calling.

Real promises: weakened, ignored or denied

“My writings must be consistent with [the Bible’s] unchanging standard.” I’m not sure if Young understands what a vital goal that is. Back in Old Testament days they used to stone men who “prophesied” something God didn’t say. Now some believe the gift of prophecy Paul discussed with the Corinthians is identical — and that is a related issue, but Young does not even try to prove her “listening” to God is Biblical. She simply assumes it is, then starts, and doesn’t even explain how it is that God’s words to her will also apply to readers; I’m confused!

Of course, if God had promised He would communicate more with His people using impressions during quiet times, I wouldn’t be criticizing this. However, He never promised He would.

Yes, of course He could do this. But the fact that God could do many things is not proof that He has or will. Even a VeggieTales episode portrayed this well: God could turn Larry the Cucumber into a chicken, but as Bob the Tomato reminded Larry, God only does what He wants to do. Scripture tells us how He has revealed what He wants us to know about Him: Scripture alone.

Even if God had chosen to reveal new things to “listeners” today, it must be consistent with His previous revelation. Otherwise He is a liar, and not the loving, truthful God He promised He is.

But despite giving credit to Scripture alone as being inspired, Jesus Calling’s author treats the precious, revealed Scripture in a very casual and cavalier fashion, frequently throughout the devotions. Her partial quoting of verses, often mixed with her own opinions of what Jesus was telling her that particular day, bypasses the context of each passage, and the whole Bible itself.

The first woeful result: this weakens the power of Scripture’s promises. For example, Jeremiah 29:11 is a wonderful proof of how God promised to remember the Jews even during their exile (which He Himself had promised and carried out because of their disobedience). But Young quotes only that verse, apart from context, apart from the glorious encouragement that God not only made this promise to them, but fulfilled it. She makes the “promise” not only narrowly personal but pathetic. The only reason we know God will do the same for us — which is promised more directly in other Scriptures — is because He has a track record, a history.

It’s typical of evangelicals to repeat God’s promises without their contexts, which actually would render them more powerful and encouraging. Why quote only partially? We treat no other book or writer like this. Is it more loving to Jesus to listen only to parts of His more-sure promises? How would He feel about any of us salvaging His words from the page, or our own memories — anyone steeped in evangelical culture for years could do this — for our own goals, and not His?

Second, Young’s partial quotes of Scripture phrases frequently end up ignoring what God has already and explicitly said. At random (that’s another wrong way of reading any book, including the Bible!) I flipped to Young’s personal-turned-meant-for-others entry for June 18:

You are my beloved child. I chose you before the foundation of the world, to walk with Me along paths designed uniquely for you. Concentrate on keeping in step with Me, instead of trying to anticipate My plans for you. If you trust that My plans are to prosper you and not to harm you, you can relax and enjoy the present moment.

Is this all just a pack of lies? No. But has Jesus really said this, in that order? Also no. Young italicizes the “I chose you …” to indicate its Biblical origin and cites the reference, along with others. But she ignores the fact that Paul was writing (Ephesians 1: 3-10) about a Christian’s salvation from spiritual death thanks to Christ’s death, redemption of us and resurrection: the Gospel! Instead she misappropriates this phrase as if it’s only about a Gospel result: following “paths designed uniquely for you.” This both weakens the actual promise and ignores the core truth: that only through the Gospel of Christ’s grace and forgiveness of our sins do we have any hope of staying on His paths for us. Because of this ignoring what God has truly said, whether intentional or simply careless, Young’s pep talk is neither loving nor encouraging. Despite her intentions, it becomes a lie by omission and a “unique path” that isn’t so unique as legalistic.

That leads to a third and last tragic result of Young’s attempts to speak on Jesus’ behalf: Jesus Calling implicitly denies the Gospel. This is perhaps the worst lie of omission in the book: in 365 devotions, Young never finds time to emphasize how Jesus came to Earth to fulfill the Law and die to save from sins. He came not just to show a better way to live or give us His special Peace and Presence that help in our troubles — any self-help speaker could do that. Instead Jesus showed the more amazing love: He died for His people’s sins to reconcile them and His creation to God the Father.

Any book that bypasses that — as if expecting someone else to take care of that tangential, trivial part of the Bible — does not help point people to the true-life Jesus. This “Jesus” ends up being only a solution for personal problems and a balm for one’s soul during quiet times. He’s not the actual Savior Who saves us not just from our little failings and imperfections, but from our initial hatred of God, and does all things for God’s glory.

Any professing Christian book ignoring that is not offering improved love, or bonus-feature love, but no real love.

Relationship through truth

My goal is not to be a mean “watch-blogger” type, or to act as though any imaginative portrayal of Jesus or creative work is an assault on the truth of Scripture’s sufficiency. As a fiction author myself, I’ve written “dialogue” for Jesus, and even imagined what He would say to a man who somehow visited the New Earth before he died! But all artistic endeavors, all imaginings of what Jesus would say or do in a particular situation, must be grounded in God’s actual Word. And is it really loving, both to the real Jesus and to our Christian brothers and sisters, to act as though we have managed to reach some spiritual plateau and received new words from Him?

Let us say I come home today after work and reunited with my loving wife. Then she begins telling me about her day, what thoughts she’s had, what goals she’s accomplished, anything she has done or hopes to do. What if I nodded politely, telling her (and others later) how much I appreciate what she says — but then go off by myself, in a quiet room, and wrote down what I thought she would say to me, even while using half-remembered phrases she did say?

This approaches too close to some of the rhetoric I have heard from those who say they want “relationship” but don’t need to worry about all that truth-and-doctrine stuff. I just want to know the real Jesus, they say, and all this theology and learning facts gets in the way.

Fortunately, Young does not say that. But she also never reminds us that true love for a person does not come apart from careful, grace-based, intentional listening to what he actually said. One can memorize facts about a figure without loving him or being in a close relationship, but one cannot love a person apart from caring and loving what he has said about what he is like.

Objection: But I’ve been in so many churches where everyone is all about dry facts and figures about Jesus. What I really need is rest in Him and have His peace, not just more things to do and truths to know about Him, “doctrine” without love. Why are you picking on this book?

Yet any professed “doctrines” about Jesus also become lies by omission, if separated from love for others in Christ — the same love the Father showed us by sending Him to redeem us.

Therefore, I would simply ask: how does correcting for lies-by-omission with more of the same help fix the problem? Jesus does promise rest, absolutely (as in Matt. 11:28). But the best rest we can receive in Him is because He has forgiven us — not just for stressing out or failing to believe His promises to help guide us, but from our rebellion against God Himself.

That is a greater story, and a far greater love, for the actual Jesus Christ.

Christians shouldn’t oppose creative re-presenting of His truth, either in fiction or nonfiction, including devotional books. But we must love the real Jesus. And He calls us to truth, and better honor His precious Word — the same Word that Peter said is “more sure” (2 Peter 1:16-20) even than Peter’s incredible experience on a mountaintop.

Stephen, a book reviewer who hopes to combine Biblical truth with God-honoring imagination,

To all the readers of a little hardback that was the Christian bestseller of 2010, and with hopes that these will see that I seek to support a real and true relationship with Jesus Christ,

Grace and peace to you! Yet might I honestly ask some questions about this book?

In her introduction to Jesus Calling, author Sarah Young says she knows these devotionals do not equal Scripture’s importance. Nevertheless, she writes “as” Jesus, in the first person, and doesn’t even attempt to find in the more-sure Word a precedent to seek God’s words that way.

Instead her reasons seem to be: doing this is what she needed and it helped. It works for me, so a) it’s right, b) it’ll also work for you. Did I read that wrong?

While sharing her life story of learning, church-planting work and counseling, Young admits, “I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more.” That seems to imply she’s already read the Bible, been there, done that, and knows everything that’s in it, and is therefore ready to move on to something better. For her, that superior method includes “waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and papers in hand, recording the messages they received from Him,” as once did two anonymous authors of another book called God Calling.

But does the actual Word from God recommend doing this? Why does Young seem to expect “the Presence” (her term) to speak new words? Scripture says the Holy Spirit’s job is to show us Christ and His Word, sufficient for our needs (1 Timothy 3: 16-27). Why desire more?

In Ephesians 1, the apostle Paul’s loving letter to a new church, he prays for them: not that they would find new wisdom, but that they would have “the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” (verse 18), through Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus, open their eyes to the amazing salvation and spiritual riches You’ve already given them!

Young does credit the Bible as “the only inerrant Word of God,” but after explaining how her wish for more led her to “listen” for other “personal messages” and “directives” from God. But why not focus on the Word? “My writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard,” she says, and thank God for that. But why write messages “from Jesus” at all, for ourselves or for others? I know I haven’t mastered the Bible in a 101 course and am now ready for more! But even if Young had mastered Scripture, why does she ignore the Bible’s Gospel narrative — the holy God sent His Son to save sinners? That actually weakens His love and promises.

“My writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard.” Are they? Might we test this book in love, the same way we do any preacher or writer who claims to speak for God?

An allegory

Allegories are helpful. This one breaks down only because Jesus is real. Otherwise, consider:

My darling, you may have heard such different accounts of me so as puzzle you exceedingly. But though I am absent you today, my heart ever returns to think of you and anticipate greatly when we will reunite. Permanent happiness shall be ours, with passions (that) were stronger than our virtue. And now as I plan to return from London in a fortnight, know that my love remains with you. You may not know how this began; neither did I, for I cannot fix on the hour, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. … I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun. Do contemplate my return and think of me in return, for it is our quiet times together I treasure the most.

Very truly yours,

Your Mr. Darcy

Photo illustration by yours truly

This could be the next great literary success: Mr. Darcy Calling, with daily devotions “from” Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy himself, brooding and mysterious, owner of Pemberly, hero of Jane Austen’s classic Pride and Prejudice. In fact, quotes from Pride and Prejudice itself — the parts where Mr. Darcy was talking — are in the above letter as I “listened” to him, to relay his thoughts to you, gentle reader. My past experience with Pride and Prejudice allows me to know what Mr. Darcy wants and what he’s daily thinking about: you, and how much he desires your company.

Yes, Pride and Prejudice is the only source for learning what Mr. Darcy did and said, and what we know about him from his creator, the actual author, and what is also mysterious about him. But don’t you feel like you want to know more than that? Like you want his actual Presence?

… Just a few little issues that all those nitpicky Austen book purists will take with my approach:

1. Pride and Prejudice was not intended to be read this way. Even assuming Mr. Darcy were a real person, the only sure record we have of his doings is the novel itself!
2. The italicized quotes do not place what he said in the rightful contexts.
3. Mr. Darcy’s dialogue takes place in completely different settings than a Letter to You, Gentle Reader. Sometimes he was talking with Elizabeth Bennet, his actual love!
4. Pride and Prejudice is not meant to be read piecemeal. It has an overarching storyline.
5. Elizabeth Bennet is nowhere in the 365 “devotions.” Her role, and Mr. Darcy’s courtship of and eventual marriage to her, is integral to the story. You can’t just hijack a real-life person (again, imagine he’s real) and “listen” for new messages from him to another.
6. The “quotes” give lip-service to the original book, but are useless and even contradictory additions. For example, Mr. Darcy does not endorse passions stronger than virtue.

And if I have let errors slip into this open letter’s Pride and Prejudice portion, such as minor plot disparities, or misspelling Elizabeth Bennet’s last name with two Ts instead of one (which I haven’t) — why should those trifling oversights get in the way of having a Personal Relationship with Mr. Darcy, or my own qualification to speak on his behalf?

Seriously, I hope no one who respects Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice would decry these six critical questions as ignoring a need to have a “personal relationship” with Mr. Darcy. Why? Because this “Darcy” is made-up, based on partly remembered quotes from the book. It gives lip-service to the book, such as the character’s name and origins and some traits, but the very existence of this product implicitly says: Austen just didn’t say enough to help. Now it’s my turn.

How might Jesus feel to hear His wonderful Word so dismissed? Moreover, can one say he or she wants a personal relationship with Christ, and then decide not to listen to what we know He said — or, even with good intentions, listen to someone else who wasn’t listening?

On Friday: how does Jesus Calling consider the complete and in-context promises of Scripture?