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!

Many others, including Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio, have already pointed out the biggest problems. Warren is a Pelagian, Rosebrough noted, and thus that assumption about human nature underlies all Warren teaches. His sermons, deeds, ministry, anything, assume the notion that humans can simply learn a truth and thus change their moral behavior.

But while listening to Rosebrough’s rundown of Warren’s message, I kept also hearing more little lies. It seems that even while trying to talk about the battle for Christians’ minds, Warren is allowing several wrong beliefs to influence his moral behavior and judgment.

What follows are some more errors, often very subtle, in Warren’s assumptions and quotations.

For the sake of time, I’ll mostly limit them to those I haven’t yet heard specifically rebutted.

Warren started with descriptions of difficulties in his life — the most recent of which was a family’s member’s illness, which prevented him from attending the conference live.

I’m confident that God has given me a message. I believe that Satan didn’t want me to teach it to you, and I believe that Satan didn’t want you to hear it.

Myth 1: We can make a good guess that the Devil is causing specific bad things.

It’s already hard enough to figure out what God’s up to, and He’s revealed so much about Himself. But we do know He is working despite whatever the Devil does, and even through what the Devil does. It is very risky to say “the Devil is doing this.” Why not cut out the middle man and try to discern why God is allowing difficulties to happen?

Myth 2: If it’s bad, hurting me, preventing ministry, etc., the Devil must be doing it.

The Devil is not even equally as powerful as God. Even if he is behind a difficult circumstance, shouldn’t we disclaim that God is more sovereign and not even partly endorse the subtle suspicion that God only causes good things to happen?

I have seen the face of mental illness. I have seen what it’s like to see people not able to hear God because their minds are broken and aren’t connecting to God even when they want to connect to God.

Myth 3: God often speaks directly to our minds.

This isn’t stated, but heavily implied. I hope Warren is not endorsing the belief that in addition to the final revelation of Scripture, God directs His people by use of inner “nudges” or subtle directions about His will. Warren could have easily said that it’s tragic when people undergo mental illness and aren’t able to study God’s Word or pray to Him in response.

I know that whatever gets your mind gets you. …

Myth 4: Our battle is primarily against evil’s assault from outside, not from inside.

“Jesus said, by the way, that sin comes out of a person,” Rosebrough cut in. “It develops inside of his heart. It comes from within” (Mark 7).

The battle for sin always starts in the mind. […] Every one of us has a mental illness.

This leaves out the truth that nonbelievers have sinful hearts, and even Christians fight most of the battle in their own hearts. (Even posters for the film Spider-Man 3 echoed this truth.)

Yes, the Devil is a liar and he causes temptations. Scripture is clear that much of our battle is external (cf. Eph. 6). But without understanding what’s in our hearts, sin, people will go around swatting at demons and imagining only external sources of sin, while the worst source festers inside. That applies to Christians, who still fight against sin-shrapnel, but even more so to non-Christians who must be first raised from spiritual death and resurrected to life in Christ (Eph. 2).

Why not at least distinguish between non-Christians whose chief problem is mainly in the heart, and Christians who are saved but who still fight wrong thinking? That would have been helpful.

But after so much damage done by Christians who assume if you aren’t a Christian, you must have simply not heard the right information! or even, non-Christians are basically good and just need to have their thinking corrected, it’s sad to hear Warren repeating these errors.

The reason we have so many ineffective Christians today is because they don’t know how to fight the battle of the mind.

Myth 5: We have so many ineffective Christians today.

That many people claim to be “Christians” and are ineffective is undisputed. Many others would dispute their claim to be Christians. Why not at least make allowance for false believers?

Myth 6: We must address battle-of-mind issues based on (a) perceived Problem(s).

Several times Warren goes on to talk about how Christians are failing, what the church is doing wrong, how we too often learn all this stuff but don’t apply it, etc. His rhetoric is all based on generalizations; he doesn’t even back up his claim with Barna surveys. Either way, this could be the result of Ministry Myopia. Here are the Problems I’ve seen in my ministry (views that often lead to more exposure only to these problems, because of a leader’s specific focus) so therefore they must be the same all over. Furthermore, we must do all we can to Fix the Problems.

Warren floats over several Scripture texts, emphasizing obedience, an implicit goal not of fixing our eyes on Christ, but Fixing the Problem. This leads to Law, either God’s true Law — which is fulfilled in Christ — or manmade Law, not the fact of dead hearts and our need for the Gospel.

Now the old cliché from the computer early days, GIGO, “garbage in, garbage out,” is still true today. The amount of garbage you put in is what you’re gonna get out.

Myth 7: Wrong thinking comes primarily from external sources.

This is very similar to myth 4. Warren has some good things to say about discernment, but citing this catchphrase without a foundation of humans’ sinful nature repeats a myth promoted by conservative and liberal professing Christians: if you put sin inside you, it will come out from you. Its implication: your main job is to avoid sinful Stuff. Its refutation: same as above, Mark 7. Jesus did not endorse that notion. He said garbage inside your heart comes out.

Warren even sounds like a dreaded “fundamentalist” when he talks about Christians needing to avoid junk in movies and on TV. He doesn’t say Christians do this mainly to honor God, but to Avoid Bad Stuff. Again it’s an emphasis on Fixing the Problem, not on glorifying God — and ignores the true source of sin, which doesn’t come from a Thing, but from the heart.

And here we thought it was only big bad Al Mohler and other “fundamentalists” who say this.

(Likely continued on Wednesday. …)

First you got saved, your sins are forgiven, and you love God. But now it’s time to make your serious commitment. Will you be one of those Christians who plays it safe, or are you going to get crazy for Jesus, and devoting all your life to Him?

Last week I was reminded that such challenges are not nearly so new as they sound. They’ve been around for many, many decades, and in forms and with language that sounds much the same each time. And Dr. Monte E. White, in a 1999 column printed in Reformation & Revival Journal, knows full well how it goes — because for many years he went along with it himself.

Thanks much to him for allowing his article to be reprinted here from the original article.¹ All divisions are my own — for what will turn out to be a seven-part series on this site — and no change has been made while converting the PDF to straight text.

Green Berets for Jesus

It was late one evening when a friend came to my dorm room at Samford University. I had been practicing piano for hours and was just getting to my room for some dreaded work on a Western Civilization assignment. The friend excitedly told me of a revival at one of the Baptist churches there in Birmingham, Alabama. Apparently, he had “never seen or heard of anything like what was going on there.” Being the son of a Southern Baptist pastor, I seriously doubted if there was anything I had not already seen or heard. However, since I was weary of being secluded in a windowless room for three hours of piano practice, I “felt led” to go to church that night.

We arrived forty-five minutes early and there were no more seats available in an auditorium that seated 750 or more people. Rather than standing outside with all the latecomers and listening to the service via loudspeakers, I led my friend around the back where we sneaked in through some closets, crawled through the choir loft and sat down on the floor directly in front of the pulpit.

After some rousing music, the janitor came out to do something with the pulpit. I knew he was the janitor because he had longhair, was wearing faded blue jeans, a pullover and sandals. To my surprise, however, the “janitor” turned out to be the speaker—Arthur Blessit [sic], the “father” of the Jesus Movement. For forty-five minutes, Arthur exhorted the crowd of young people to give their lives to Jesus Christ. The man’s very pores exuded the love of Christ. I was mesmerized by his passion for the lost and his obvious devotion to reach those whom the church had ignored.

When the sermon was over, an invitation was given for people to come forward to give themselves to Jesus. Scores came down the aisle and emptied their pockets of drugs and related paraphernalia. While Arthur was working his way through the crowd, I could see that he was moving in my direction. As I tried to back up and give the pagans room to talk with the man, I could see that he was focused on reaching me. When he took my hand, before I could say— “I am a Baptist who hasn’t missed Sunday School in fourteen years and my dad is a leading pastor in the denomination so don’t confuse me with the riffraff” —he told me to sit in a pew and not leave until he had spoken with me. His tone was stem, his demeanor was commanding.

While I had the urge to run, I waited for Arthur to return. “No one talks to me in that tone. What happened to the love that was dripping from his every word? Why did he look so angry with me? Does he think I am one of those pagans?” Before I could let him know that he had made a mistake, he sat down beside me and told me that I was obviously running from God’s call on my life. “What call is that?” I asked. “The call to the ministry,” he shot back.

Now I had already explained to God a year before that I would serve Him, but not in any pulpit. I loved my dad; I thought he was an incredible man of God. However, the vocation seemed quite stressful, laden with poverty and filled with men who needed some lessons in savoir faire. Not a lifestyle I was attracted to. So, as a compromise with the Almighty, I offered my services in the world of music. Obviously, Arthur had not been made privy to this agreement. However, before I could explain my case to this misguided evangelist, he told me that we—as in, the two of us—were going to go out and “witness to people for the Lord.”

When we pulled up in front of the Boom-Boom Room, I knew I was in trouble. I had frequently patronized this establishment but had not “felt led” to speak to anyone there about his spiritual condition. While I had never been carded there before, this time I begged God to see to it that the gentleman at the door noticed I was under age. He did not.

While Arthur began cheerfully speaking to individuals about the gospel I did my best to disappear into the shadows and hoped that no one recognized me. But then 1 heard a man ask me if I was “with that long-haired guy over there.” I nodded yes, eyes staring forward. He then asked me if I believed the same things that Arthur was telling people over at the bar. I affirmed my agreement with another nod, and still would not look at the gentleman who was speaking to me.

“Do you mean to tell me that Jesus will forgive me all of my sins, if I ask Him to?” His voice was filled with amazement.

“Yes,” I answered, with a voice filled with a not-so-subtle tone that said, “Go Away, You Bother Me!”

“Do you mean that I could pray right here and give my life to Jesus Christ and He would wipe my sins away?” His voice was growing louder.

“Yes.” My answers were more quiet than the still small voice heard by Elijah.

“I can repent … and He will forgive anything and everything I have done wrong?”

I sighed a “Yes” in his general direction.

“Okay. Let’s pray. I want to give my life to Jesus!”

I couldn’t believe it. I looked over at the elderly gentleman whose cheeks were bathed in tears and … drew a blank. What was I supposed to say? Finally I remembered that I should lead him in prayer, and so offered my hand and bowed my head. With the gusto of a Pentecostal, the man yelled out, “No, I want to kneel like those people over there are doing with your friend!” And before I could explain that we were not saved by such works, he had yanked me to the floor to kneel beside him and began repenting of every sin he had ever committed, his anguish filling every syllable. Before I had time to cover myself by acting as if I had dropped my contact lenses, I was awash in tears of humiliation over my arrogance and fear of man. Here was an unbeliever who, without hesitation, was willing to humble himself before God and man while I, a longtime believer, refused to do anything that would take me out of my ego’s comfort zone.

(Tomorrow: do all Christians have the same calling as “Green Berets” like David Livingstone?)

For instance, there’s the main theme of chapter 6, “How Much is Enough?” The question, and much of the chapter, reference Mark 10 and its description of Jesus’ encounter with a rich man.

Platt summarizes the account, ending with the rich man’s dejected departure from Jesus, clearly not wanting to follow Jesus’ commandment to sell all he has and follow Him. God bless Platt, he focuses on the truth that the rich man didn’t just have a moral failing. “Fundamentally, the rich man needed a new heart, one that was radically transformed by the gospel,” Platt writes.

Radical’s author also focuses on two errors people derive from the passage: acting as if the New Testament commands all Christians to sell all they have, or assuming that “Jesus never calls his followers to abandon all their possessions to follow him.

“This means he might call you or me to do this,” Platt notes.

But how would we know that? The author stops short of offering thoughts. What solution will fill the empty space? My concern: all those assumptions about listening for some “inner leading” from God, a nudge or a pull this direction or that, are still around. And many Christians will lurch toward them automatically.

Yes, a longer discussion of discerning God’s will would take more time. But Platt was good at including other disclaimers. A short aside like this would have helped: We can’t know for sure if God wants you to sell all you have. That’s another topic (try so-and-so book about it). But we do know Scripture doesn’t support some ideas of listening for God’s “inner nudge.” Our only sure source of knowing God’s will in advance is the written Word.

Without such disclaimers, Radical could permit wrong ideas to enter readers’ minds. To be sure, that’s often not an author’s fault. But Platt’s other asides, such as the hmm-hmm-maybe-that’s-naughty line about French fries, contribute (likely unintentionally) to a guilt-inducing edge. ¹

As Kevin DeYoung notes in his critical, though friendly review:

To his credit, Platt says we don’t need to feel guilty for everything that is not an absolute necessity (127). But earlier we are made to feel bad for the money we spend on french fries (108). It is easy to stir people to action by relating how little everyone else has and how much we have in America, but we are not meant to have constant low-level guilt because we could be doing more.

Even more than Platt’s French fries part, this aside from page 77 provoked my raised eyebrow:

In all this missions talk, you may begin to think, Well, surely you’re not suggesting that we’re all supposed to move overseas. That is certainly not what I’m suggesting (thought I’m not completely ruling it out!).

And why not completely rule that out? No — let’s completely rule it out! If the entire body were in overseas missionary work, where would the sense of domestic missionary work be? If the entire body were on the missionary dole, where would the sense of financial support be?

It doesn’t take much to show why Christians should avoid even hinting that one ministry calling would be better than another. That is true even if they’re passionate about certain ministries, such as overseas missionary work. And I argue it’s true even if a Christian book’s audience may be the sorts of people who truly need to consider that their callings may be greater than preserving their American Dreams and leaving the harder missionary work to Those People.

Platt’s lyrics may say all the right things. I just wonder if he let slip some assumptions about the best Christian living, however unintentionally, in the music of his asides and anecdotes.

It was in 2006 that I had managed to catch up to yet another Christianity-acclaimed author: John Eldredge, writer of the 2001 Wild at Heart book and its successful spinoffs.

It’s written for men, and yet although Eldredge is clearly an avid outdoorsman and guy who likes to leap off cliffs and things, his style is often very dramatic, almost feminine. His style contrasts with that of some other Christian men’s books, whose shorter, journalistic sentences cut the poetry and flowery adjectives and get right to the roots.

Worse than the style is this: in terms of defining a man’s role Biblically and how truly redeemed men of God should operate in a rebellious world, Eldredge falters — repeatedly.

In his haste to rebut — and rightfully so — secular and Christian notions of sensitive, caring Nice Guys in touch with their feminine sides, Eldredge unfortunately goes too far, and “wildly” outside of Scripture and common sense.

Walk on the wild side

Despite his own few disclaimers, Eldredge more than indirectly describes his own favorite hobbies — biking, hiking, running from an angry bull moose, etc. — as typical as those of the Wild Man, who has truly become free.

Eldredge naïvely applies this one-size-fits-all approach, based on whatever outdoorsey things worked for him, as if they will work the same for every crisis-afflicted man every time. Meanwhile, guys who enjoy painting, writing, or perhaps that corporate work Eldredge often dismisses as stunting to “wildness,” would fall far outside the stereotype. Instead, it seems the inevitable result of the Man Who Is Truly Set Free will be a sudden craving to rappel off a high sharp place.

That could be dismissed as merely the author’s narrow-mindedness, and rather juvenile self-focus. By far the worse problem is where Eldredge thinks far too broadly: proof-texting multiple Scripture passages and distorting God’s nature to fit his own “wild” worldview.

‘Wounded’ by un-Biblical ideas

Wild at Heart usually acts as a sequel to something. Eldredge’s often-meandering style leaves one not wanting more in the manner a great book brings, but in the way rendered by a book whose author hasn’t exactly finished every thought. One can easily read and keep thinking, This is a supplemental. It’s as if Eldredge is writing for people already exposed to something.

One could assume that prerequisite book is the Bible. But Eldredge never directly recommends reading the Scriptures or repenting to follow Christ before considering Wild. Instead, to make the “wild” ideas take hold, Eldredge merely assembles a montage of Scripture passages and other quotes, old and new, from psychologists, religious writers, recording artists and very often the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart. The character William Wallace of that film is frequently upheld as a Wild Man whose example we should emulate. (This book was written, of course, before Mel Gibson made his famous film about the truly best Man — and God — Who ever lived.)

Eldredge does devote considerable time to God Himself. Yet at times his portrayal of the Almighty is downright human — as another reviewer wrote, this is “God in Man’s Image.”

God is the ultimate Wild Man, Eldredge maintains. He enjoys taking risks. And His creation ultimately reflects that wildness, Eldredge writes, by way of thunderstorms, pods of killer whales, great white sharks, rattlesnakes and angry, charging bull moose.

“After God made all this, he pronounced it good, for heaven’s sake,” Eldredge explains.

Hold up. Read over that Wild list for a moment and consider: thunderstorms, sharks, rattlesnakes and bellowing moose can kill people. And if God makes all this because He’s wild and likes challenge and adventure, therefore — part of God’s “adventure” is killing people?

But Eldredge is nowhere near wanting to make God the infamous “author of sin.” In fact, he reveals his views as drastically opposite. “In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case,” which results in a chess-player God Who directly causes sin, Eldredge says. “Clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks.”

Of course, Eldredge assures readers he’s not advocating Open Theism. For those unfamiliar with the term, the word “heresy” will do instead, for it describes an unbiblical God Whom you can surprise. Yes, some may indeed “overstate” God’s sovereignty and decide He plays both sides of the chessboard; but Eldredge goes to the opposite extreme. Both hyper-Calvinists’ and Eldredge’s Open Theist versions of God have Him directly causing sin and death — the latter view begging that conclusion because God is a risk-taking, “wild” Deity.

Informed Christians understand the original creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). And it was “wild” and adventurous enough without moose chasing people all over the place. Eldredge goes outside of Scripture in merely that explanation. It is enough to undermine his whole foundation. But his errors hurtle even closer to the cliff’s edge from there.

Later, Eldredge re-describes the Rebellion in Genesis, running the narrative like everything else through his own standard gender-roles filter. Evidently the reason for Adam’s sin was not rebellion against God’s law, or wanting to be like God. Instead, the first created man “gave in to paralysis,” Eldredge writes. “He denied his very nature and went passive.”

Indeed, a case can be made that this is a secondary aspect of the Rebellion or a consequence of sin — that men forsake their roles as leaders and give way to passivity. But it’s not the cause of the first sin! God in Genesis and everywhere else in Scripture made it clear that idolatry ruined everything first and everything else is just secondary. Still, this is the “wild, wild” world of Eldredge, where apparently only denying gender roles ruined everything.

Just understand not only God’s wild nature, but how Adam denied his own wild nature in God’s image, and all men’s other problems are made clear, Eldredge contends. That includes the “wound” that every man supposedly inherits, likely passed down by his own father. Here Eldredge abandons Scripture even more and instead goes all secular-psychologist on readers.

The wounded before the spiritually dead?

Again Eldredge’s myopia is clear: A man’s denial of his Wildness or a Wild God is indirectly tied to the Wound he must have received as a growing boy. Here multiple male anecdotes come into play, chimed in by song lyrics: many men, Eldredge among them, give their accounts of mistreatment from their fathers, who may have told their sons they were worthless, would amount to nothing, and other condemnations.

Once more, a one-size-fits-all approach. If you’ve formed a False Self, or if you’re hurting, it’s your father’s fault.

To be sure, no thinking person would deny that is true for countless people, in a world of rebellion that often has rejected God’s designated roles for men and women and the sexes’ very real differences. But to portray all men as suffering the same affliction without regard for diverse circumstances, other problems and altogether common sense — it’s a cause/effect procedure, a diagram from a book — is rather a “wild” concept indeed. Yet it’s been common to some psychiatrists and approaches to therapy — un-Biblical ones — for years.

Comedy columnist Dave Barry spoofed this approach in a mid-1980s column, reprinted in Dave Barry’s Bad Habits:

PSYCHIATRIST: And what seems to be the trouble?

PATIENT: I’ve been having these horrible, splitting headaches.

PSYCHIATRIST: And when did these headaches begin? Around the time you realized your father was a horrible man?

PATIENT: No, my father was a wonderful man. My headaches began last week, when I was working under a car and the jack broke and the car fell on my head. I’ve also been bleeding from my ears.

PSYCHIATRIST: I see. And was your father’s name Jack?

Eldredge goes far outside the Scripture again when he contends that men must come clean about their “wound.” It sounds almost like an altar call to salvation, except for one crucial element. Eldredge, in effect, maintains that wounded men must admit and repent — repent the fact that It Wasn’t My Fault.

A quoted scene from the movie Good Will Hunting plays this out. A psychiatrist must get his patient to “repent” by admitting several times that It Wasn’t His Fault. “It’s not your fault,” the psych tells “Good Will” over and over. “It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault.” Until finally Will breaks down and is forced to admit the fact that — well, he’s guilty of nothing.

Eldredge skips over the fact that Biblically every man is guilty of a heinous crime: insidious rebellion against a holy God! Of course, many men’s fears and the factors that have led to their problems are often unavoidable, but that’s the result of another man’s rebellion against God that has led to the man’s maltreatment of others.

Rebellion against God is the true Wound, but it’s much worse than just an injury: the Bible is clear that humans are dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1-9, Colossians 2:13). And the Biblical God, because of His sovereign, holy nature, is repulsed. Therefore Christ, because of His mercy, will resurrect His people from that death as He resurrected Himself. Only then can He begin work on the numerous scars and wounds committed on the person after he was killed.

Eldredge doesn’t just write about working a surface treatment for a living person’s wounds. Instead, he presents a Savior Who will stitch wounds (real or merely perceived) without first resurrecting the individual from his or her spiritual death.

Such a view is understandable, at least from a human point of view. If a doctor stands before a battlefield filled with the wounded and dying, and those already dead, he should tend to the wounded first. But the Almighty God, as is typical for Him by human standards, does take a “wild” approach: He raises the dead first! He can do that!

Dismissing ‘doctrinal Nazis’?

That is Wild at Heart’s mortal wound: Eldredge skips over the rebels-and-resurrections doctrines. He seems to assume you’ve already read the Bible, or may somehow get into those other peripheral things such as sin and Grace after you’ve dealt with your father’s nasty treatment or your own vital desperation to prove yourself a man.

But any criticisms of his worldview, based on the felt-needs framework and “gender recovery” mind trips, won’t be well-received. Early on, Eldredge dismisses those concerned with sound teaching as “self-appointed doctrine police” who practice “doctrinal Nazism.”

Like most, he’s likely referring to those who swerve too far into Pharisaical legalism, which stifles true growth in the Person of Christ. But such an approach miscasts the Pharisees and gets the problem completely backwards: the Pharisees’ flaw wasn’t forcing everyone to accept their correct and proper Biblical doctrines. It was making up new rules, with if/then, cause/effect approaches to every problem, and saying they were equivalent to what was actually in Scripture.

That is exactly what Eldredge has himself done. The “wild” focus has led him in the book to proof-text Scripture to support his redefinitions of God, human rebellion and the seriousness of humankind’s “wound.” And he naïvely applies these concepts to all unspiritual or “problem” men, rather than sourcing his views in the actual Bible.

Perhaps sticking with the Scripture is all the more becoming the truly “wild” concept in the Church, while too many of its members increasingly seek after psychology and worldly traditions rather than the Person of Christ Himself. His Word should never be replaced by the worldly wisdom of men — either “wild” men or otherwise.

Using real-life experiences, [name of author] reveals the attitudes and actions that helped him hear directly from God when facing challenges. You’ll learn how to listen for whispers that determine choices, nudges that rescue us from despair, promptings that spur growth, urgings that come from others, and inspiration that reveals the terrible plight of people around the globe.

By the way, God told me to critique this book I haven’t actually read — He gave me a nudge, you see.

But seriously: does anyplace in Scripture say God wants us to seek His will this way?^{1 2}

But I am a bit confused as to how a photo of a laminin protein can be such a boon to faith as some Christians say it has been to them. Help me out here? And I don’t want to be rude, but I have a few questions, and I’m sure they’ll be echoed by others who also don’t quite get it.¹

1. Is it that all galaxies or protein molecules contain cross shapes?

2. If not, might other galaxies or proteins seem to have other shapes instead? Perhaps even shapes in reminiscent of other religious icons, such as a Star of David or the Islamic Crescent? Perhaps someone with more of a life-sciences background could fill us in on this.

3. Could therefore someone of another religion use the same argument? Would it be valid for their point? If not, should we as Christians use the same line of reasoning? Does Scripture encourage us to do so?

4. Is this much different from people thinking they’ve seen Jesus, the Virgin Mary or a saint in shrubbery, and take it as a sign of blessing?

5. Do Christians really “need” such signs? Should we bring them up as proof that God’s testimony of common grace and Creator is evident in creation? Does this jibe with Christians’ claims to believe the written Word as God’s final and uttermost specific revelation to people?

Cross shapes, whether in molecules or stripped-off bark of a tree, can remind us of Jesus. But I wouldn’t use it as a basis for supposed proof of His Word or for God being our Creator.

In her excellent and recent Answers in Genesis article, Dr. Georgia Purdom kindly and with Biblical basis explores the laminin protein and its seeming cross shape. She starts off with a mention of evangelist Louie Giglio, who with good intentions relates the shape of laminin to the truth of Colossians 1:17.²

While I appreciate Mr. Giglio’s passion for the Word, I would suggest that this type of argument is not a good one to use. [. . .] The main problem with this type of argument is that it appears that something outside of Scripture (in this case, laminin) is vital to know the truthfulness of a biblical truth. Laminin is used to prove a biblical truth. However, we should never use our fallible, finite understanding of the world to judge the infallible Word of God. What we observe in the world can certainly be used to confirm God’s Word (and it does), but our finite observations are not in a position to evaluate the infinite things of God. Only if we start with the Bible as our ultimate standard can we have a worldview that is rational and makes sense of the evidence. [. . .]

The structure of laminin was not made popular until 2008, yet I have no doubt that many Christians before that time have trusted the truth presented in Colossians 1:17 because it is God’s Word. Would Colossians 1:17 be any less true if laminin were not in the shape of a cross? No. If five years from now we discover that the laminin protein actually has a different shape (in fact, some electron micrographs of the protein do not resemble a cross at all, see here, p. 149), would that change the truth found in Colossians 1:17? No, because our belief in the truthfulness that Christ holds all things together should start and end with God’s Word alone!

Looking for Signs

Unfortunately this type of argument—which effectively treats our fallible, finite knowledge of the evidence as superior to God’s Word—is very popular in today’s society, especially among young people. As a former Christian college professor, I have a lot of experience with college students. I lost track of the number of times students came into my office and told me they were going to switch majors or date someone or decide to do something because God had given them a “sign.” I always posed a series of questions to them after hearing about their “sign”: Had they been praying and asking for God’s guidance? Had they been studying the Bible? Had they been talking with spiritually mature mentors? Usually this was met with a half-hearted “yes,” and then it was back to telling me about the amazing “sign.”

Certainly God can use signs to reveal things, and that is evident from Scripture. In Luke 2:12 an angel tells the shepherds, “This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” However, Jesus also admonishes those that improperly seek signs (Matthew 16:4). In today’s “fast food” society, many people prefer the “drive-thru” when it comes to knowing God’s truths. A sign is much quicker than studying and reasoning from the Scriptures, taking the time to pray, and discussing God’s Word with other believers.

Young Christians have started doubting God’s Word (especially the book of Genesis) because this is what is drummed into them from the secular world through much of the media and most public schools. Many desperately want to accept the claims of Scripture but have been taught to think, improperly, that the unaided mind is the ultimate standard for acquiring knowledge. That is why the type of argument used with the laminin protein likely resonates with them and many other Christians as well. As one blogger said, “I Believe God Is Sending Us A Message Saying Im [sic] Here And Im [sic] Holding You Together.” Yet Proverbs 1:7a tells us, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (see also Colossians 2:3).

Consider what happens when people try to prove the resurrection of Christ (a biblical truth) using unaided reasoning. Science is clear on this one: dead people do not come back to life. So, does that prove that Jesus did not resurrect? Of course not! Science and human reasoning are not the limit of what is possible; God is the limit. Scripture should be our ultimate standard to understand this miraculous event.

Starting with unaided reasoning and reading our own ideas into the Bible can lead us to all sorts of absurd conclusions. For example, the Ebola virus, which causes a horrific form of hemorrhagic fever that usually results in death, happens to have the structure of what is commonly referred to as a shepherd’s crook. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14). So, if the shape of laminin supports the biblical truth that Christ holds all things together, then what would we conclude about the Good Shepherd from the shape of the Ebola virus? And if laminin can represent a cross, then why not a sword (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12)? As Christians, we cannot allow our fallible, finite interpretations to supersede the Word of God (2 Peter 1:20).

Hey back, Isaac,

Last time, your closing paragraph, about claiming God “gave us a word” and thus risking taking His name in vain, is one of those salient points that should make any reader go … “ooooohh.”

Greg Koukl pointed out that Christians often get offended when people exclaim “Oh God!”. We say “How dare you take his name in vain!” And then we get a “Word from the Lord” and tell someone whom they should or should not marry. Who’s committing the most serious sin in taking the Lord’s name in vain? Ours does much more damage.

Further on that truth: from what I understand, the Fourth Commandment wasn’t just a ban on saying God’s Name aloud when one isn’t actually addressing Him. That is included, but I’m very sure the wider meaning was that the Hebrews, by their actions, should not profane the Name of God to others by what they do.

Two recent (at the time of this writing, Jan. 14) news stories add even more to this point.

The first is the life-shattering earthquake in Haiti. Christians need to clarify that God is not weak; the earthquake didn’t stun Him. But should we say “the earthquake was God’s will” as some might? It is like we should, in one sense, only among ourselves as Christians. But even then we must be careful, because many Christians (likely because they haven’t been taught) are not careful to distinguish God’s on-the-surface will from His deeper will.

Revealed will: God hates sin and suffering. Deeper will: He allows it anyway, for reasons only He knows but that even now we can begin to see, for greater good and His glory.

The second related issue is Pat Robertson’s statement that God’s will is judging Haiti for some sin in the past (such as a “pact with the Devil”). As you said, this seems to take the Lord’s Name in vain as much as anyone who utters His Name aloud as part of a vile cussphrase.

Disclaimer: I think an equal problem to Pat Robertson’s self-righteous announcements is making equally self-righteous pronouncements against him — playing the “I’m the good cop” Christian game, trying to elevate ourselves in the world’s eyes. But instead of falling into the same sin of spiritual arrogance, we ought to plead: Mr. Robertson, you ought to first, get off the TV and come back and renounce false “prophecies”; second, understand that in the deepest sense, anything that happens is according to God’s will! Make it clear God does hate sin and suffering, but that He allows it — like the tower disaster in Luke 13: 1-4 — to remind people to repent!

What I find most often, is people do not use the principles in the Bible to make sound decisions themselves. Often, we wish to get a clear answer about God instead of making a decision for ourselves, taking the responsibility.

Like many Christians do when they claim “God told me” something, I can illustrate this truth with a Personal Anecdote. Recently I visited extended relatives over the holiday break. Someone, in a personal story of her own, told me “God told her” to give a Bible to someone.

Did she take God’s Name in vain? I’m not sure what to say about that. Isn’t it always good to share the Word with someone? Wouldn’t that obviously be in God’s revealed will? So why not just say you followed those clear written words from Him, rather than claiming some special Spirit whisper inside? In this instance, I just smiled and nodded. That action was likely more honoring to God, and to her, than picking a fight with her wording would have been.

But what if she said God wanted her to donate her entire life savings to Joyce Meyer Ministries or something? — and I, knowing her better years later, had already let her “get away” with claiming God’s direct word about her more-minor actions, and not said anything?

Really I think it comes back to being careful about our language. Someone may say God told me directly to do this and mean it very sincerely. As you said, that can still happen! But in so many cases it’s hard not to say that, or use that, as a way of setting ourselves up as so very Spiritual: God speaks to me directly. Thus the implication: Hmm, does He speak to you directly?

This seems much too close to a Gnosticism-type Christianity, in which the Holy Spirit constantly speaks mainly and “loudest” to people on a very deep Spiritual level that only very Spiritual people can hear.¹ But rather than forcing us to cringe and listen closely to whatever God might be saying in between the lines of life, the Bible gives us all the same Word. And yes, it takes physical work with actual language, to understand it. I don’t mean to imply it is easy. But it’s less difficult than how some say it is!

Here’s another point I heard somewhere If God only gave us nudges and whispers, rather than primarily speaking with His direct Word (as He has!), He would be cruel and unloving.

Last time, you mentioned looking for precedents in Scripture about finding God’s will. I think many people actually do look there for precedents, but only selectively. For example, some homeschooling-oriented Christians look to Middle-eastern culture of Old Testament days and their courtship practices² as precedent for matching up in modern times. But they never have their daughters sneak into the handsome field worker’s property when he’s in high spirits from too much drinking, and lay at the foot of his bed until he wakes up and then you say he’s your choice of a mate — a la the book of Ruth!

You also mentioned the many examples of people in Scripture asking for God’s wisdom, but making choices on extra-Biblical matters without waiting for a supposed “direct word from the Lord.” Do you think Christians blithely see past those? For example, the many times Paul in his missionary travels just went to Antioch or Crete or Attalia in Asia Minor and did not wait for a direct leading from the Lord. Instead, readers subconsciously pay more attention to the Spirit not allowing Paul and his fellow missionaries to enter one place and sending them elsewhere, or the way Moses heard from God in the burning bush, and perceive those as the way God normally works. Again, it’s selective. I wonder how much of that ties into the “life verse” fallacy, where someone bases his lifestyle or ministry on favorite parts of the Bible, ignoring the rest.

That probably means that if we were to question someone’s “word from the Lord” about even where to buy a new car, he/she would be upset and assume we believe God never speaks or acts miraculously. Of course we believe He does! Yet like you said, that’s not the Biblical rule for living. We should not expect Him to give us extra revelation when He’s already closed the canon of written Scripture, and gives us wisdom and the abilities to grow in it, with His Spirit’s help.

So here are my closing questions for next time: how do we react when someone says “God told me” such-and-such? Do we nitpick? Lovingly ask deep questions? Ignore it? And especially if someone is using that as a reason/excuse not to make a decision and take the consequences if it turns out to be “wrong” — that is, if God uses it to help us the hard way — what can we do?

Again, Godspeed! And in Him,

Stephen

Another truth I haven’t included below: I can do quite a decent Adam voice impersonation. Yet I’m not sure whether continuing this is God’s will, because the Spirit hasn’t “nudged” me one way or the other (like He does every time we have a decision to make, right?).

So, discussion question: can I imitate Adam’s voice to the glory of God? It’s not forbidden in the Bible, and I believe my intention is not mockery. So in this instance, that might be permissible.

01.24.2010 — 1 Corinthians 10:23 – 11:1 (Adam)

• What is idolatry? It is whatever we serve and worship that is not God — false worship.
• This can be seen as corporate worship and individual worship. Corporate worship, with believers in a church, should not in effect worship itself or its own method, but be done for the good of glorifying God. However, we will spent our time this morning talking about individual worship — which is much more difficult. Again, human beings are hard-wired to worship, all the time.
• If the world belongs to God, everything we do in it says something about what we think about Him.
• God has set us free to worship Him, not “freedom” to have chaos. The human need to have organization in life is even reflected in the TV show “Lost,” which shows the survivors when they land on the Island getting together to form a structure of self-government.
• But not all our free choices lead to more freedom! What if we climbed on top of a roof and began dumping all our cash off it, then jumped off? That would not result in more freedom.

• Background: at this point, the Corinthian church is a mess. Members have been defending blatant sin in their members, class warfare, believers suing each other.
• When we’re asking what things are okay for us to do as Christians, we should ask two primary questions: first, is it directly condemned in the Bible? Drunkenness is wrong, for example, or gossip. But what about the harder choices? Questions for those: are even the not-wrong actions beneficial, and do they build up? Examples: deep-friend Spalding’s donuts, or hanging out with friends every single weekend. So we can see that these seeming gray-area choices are actually wrong.
• We must also consider how others will be affected before our own good. Can you buy an expensive car while friends are out of a job? Maybe, but what would they say about Jesus and Christianity to them? What about going to Haiti on a vacation cruise while people are dying? What would others, especially nonbelievers, think if you told them you did?
• The Bible doesn’t say specifically that these are wrong. But do we think foremost about the preeminence of Christ and how He would look to those we know?
• Verse 25: things in and of themselves are not evil. Instead, our own sin and what we choose to do with things make them our idols — it is our fault. We offer worship to fake gods, such as our good work or jobs, as if those things gave blessings to us. Money, food, comfort and safety can be turned into evil. A poppy plant can used to make heroin for the abuse of one’s body. Even our own bodies can become objects of lustful worship.
• So, what if we are invited somewhere, as in verse 27? Even if our conscience is clear, our goal should be not to harm the conscience of another, and represent Jesus to others.
• How does this play out in some typical life scenarios? Example: should you work for a political candidate, when many people already assume that Christian = Republican? Would doing that result in harming the Gospel and people’s perceptions of you?
• What about joining a college fraternity? What if you are a preacher and want to cut a Sunday morning sermon short so you can get home to watch the college basketball game?
• I’m not saying we should pull away from the world entirely because this is all too hard. Neither am I saying that the answer to such questions is always no, don’t do it. We don’t need to get together and buy property to Montana, move there and set up a walled commune. But even these seemingly unimportant life decisions do matter.
• Verse 31: true worship includes everything. Nothing is outside this definition. And glorifying God should be something we enjoy to do!
• When we much such decisions with God’s glory and worship in mind, sometimes we must disagree with people, even family members, and in so doing love them more than we would if we just went along with them, for the sake of Jesus. But simply not showing up when invited somewhere doesn’t help them — they won’t know the reasons for our objection if we just fail to attend something. Instead, we must lovingly give our Christ-honoring reasons.
• Again, we were made to glorify God! He is better than everything else!

Stephen,

Good point with the Dan-Brown glasses. Someone once asked my brother if it was God’s will for him to be in the military. Now, think about it for a second. What will does he mean? Is this God’s moral will for him he’s speaking of? Probably not. He clearly knows its not in scripture for him to receive a command to clearly join the military. Sexual purity, yes, but not questions on whether to join the military. While he could use the Bible to gain wisdom on that decision, it won’t give him a clear answer.

Is the man then asking about God’s sovereign will? If so, then one would have to say that he’ll only know if he joins or not. But then, it was also God’s sovereign will for Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery, but we wouldn’t want them to answer “Yes” if we asked them whether it was God’s will for them to betray their brother.

You asked as to whether people make judgments on God’s word based on their perception of the audience of the Bible. Well, I’m not sure. In many ways, I do view it as an instruction manual (though that is an insufficient definition that excludes the most important aspects). Yet, people perhaps don’t want that. What I find most often, is people do not use the principles in the Bible to make sound decisions themselves. Often, we wish to get a clear answer about God instead of making a decision for ourselves, taking the responsibility.

Again, look at Solomon. He asked for wisdom so that he could make good decisions. When the two women came before him with the baby, he didn’t pray about a decision. James 1 tells us to ask for wisdom, and we are told God “gives generously”.

This leads me to my next point after talking about Solomon, and that’s examples. We rarely look to the scriptures for precedents in how we ask for God’s will.

Look at Paul. We often speak of open and closed doors. In 1 Corinthians he speaks of a door being opened with many adversaries, and he went through. But in 2 Corinthians he mentions a door “opened for me in the Lord,” but what does he do? He leaves it and goes somewhere else. But that throws a wrench in the paradigm of open/closed doors. Clearly God opens doors in our lives, but just because he opens them, it does not mean we have to take them.

Now before I go further, I want to say something. I believe God can definitely speak to us today in 21st century America. He can do it. I actually hold that he does. Now, God could deliver emails or send letters down in a space ship if he wanted to. Logically, there’s no reason why he couldn’t. But if you’re skeptical, it should probably be because you’re looking for scriptural precedent.

Here’s what I find in scripture: God’s speaking is always miraculous. It is most often unlooked for. It often goes against common sense. And finally, and this is big: It is always clear. No one in scripture misunderstood God’s direct word to them. They may have disobeyed, but they always heard it. And yet we can get seminars on how to listen clearly to God’s will. Nowhere in scripture does God speak through inward nudges. Nowhere does he speak through “checks on my spirit”.

And finally, I’ll end with this. You know, when I was younger, people asked me why I didn’t date. I said I didn’t want to. Nothing spiritual about it. No command from God. I just didn’t want to. Now, I wasn’t thinking as clearly about this as am now. I was still at the point where I was trying to divine God’s will. But we must be very cautious about attaching God’s sacred name to a decision of ours.

Greg Koukl pointed out that Christians often get offended when people exclaim “Oh God!”. We say “How dare you take his name in vain!” And then we get a “Word from the Lord” and tell someone whom they should or should not marry. Who’s committing the most serious sin in taking the Lord’s name in vain? Ours does much more damage.

In Christ,

Isaac

Coming next week: God’s Will Hunting, part 5: Clarifying “two wills.”