(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.

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.)

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?

On Wednesday I couldn’t figure out, at first, whether to list six or seven risks for “young restless Reformeds.” By that I mean Christians, mostly “young” — below middle age — who have gotten ahold of the teaching that Christ is sovereign in salvation and everything else. Closely connected with this truth¹ is that God uses everything, including sin and our own meaningful choices, as part of His plan, and always to bring Himself glory.

Six risks or seven risks? I had an outline, but I know it doesn’t include all of them. (Some of course will say that Reformed theology is itself the greatest risk — but that’s another column or series.) The reason why I couldn’t decide the number is that there’s so much overlap between several of my suggestions. And number 2, basing most beliefs upon reactions, affects them all.

Regardless, I view the Reformed and Gospel-centered “resurgence” as mostly a good thing, to the extent that Christians who adhere to it are reading Scripture, not just reacting to those who misread Scripture, and trying to apply their higher views of God to their daily decisions.

Yet what other risks might there be to YRRs, or other Christians? Here’s another to consider:

3. Forgetting that in Christ, we’re no longer totally depraved.

I began wondering about this when I saw that it was difficult to compliment some Reformeds.

Maybe it’s me? I don’t know — all I know is, to some who love the doctrines and applications of God’s absolute sovereignty, and their own sinful instincts, it’s very difficult to tell them:

Hey, thanks for your sermon this morning; it really encouraged me.

One person I know would often shuffle awkwardly. He might grin and say, “Well, praise the Lord.” Perhaps I read him wrong, but at that point what I really wanted to do was add, “Yes, thank God that He’s gifted you to glorify Himself through your talents and labors in the Word!” But that might not work and could make someone feel even more awkward.

Might some of this actually be due to “overdosing” on a teaching of total depravity?

Because even C.S. Lewis misunderstood this: “total depravity” does not teach that humans act wicked, all the time, with no inclination toward good or ability to do any good thing. It merely reflects what Scripture teaches: that by nature, no one seeks after God (Romans 3: 9-20), and that Christians “were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked” (Ephesians 2: 1-2). Even the good things we do are from bad motivations — without Christ, that is.²

That’s my whole point: Christians are no longer totally depraved. I love Ephesians 2’s past tense! Christians were dead in their sins, in which we once walked. But we no longer do that!

Now, does that mean we can sit around and be passive? I don’t think that will happen to a true Christian. He will want to war against the pieces of sin left in his body, in the manner Paul describes in Romans 7. He will know that growing in holiness has two sides, perhaps best expressed in Philippians 2: 12-13: “[W]ork out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” And he may even know that this struggle gets just a little easier when he’s not remembering who I am in Christ, as some devotionals and spiritual-warfare manuals encourage, but rather who Christ is in me.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5: 16-17: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

With these glorious truths in mind, might it make sense, in one sense, not to focus so much on fearing our own pride? This may be my own experience, but I find that it’s easier to forget self-focus, not when I’m giving into it or trying to fight hard against it, but when I’m forgetting myself altogether and focusing on Christ. The New Testament would seem to back this up: so much of the Gospels are about what Christ has done, followed by vital afterthoughts starting with “therefore”s: therefore, knowing this Gospel, here’s how you behave in everyday life.

Humility is like breathing: it’s vital to life, yet strangely much easier to do when you’re focused on greater things. But just try to think, Breathe in! Breathe out!, and you’ll get exhausted.

With that in mind, I think Reformed Christians could stand to learn how to accept a compliment. “Praise the Lord” seems wholly appropriate, for sure, but why cringe, as if you really don’t want the praise? Of course you do; most people do, and it would be more humble to admit that you need other people’s affirmations. A worse pride, as Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, would be to pretend you’re above needing affirmation. It’s also far too easy to grow proud of “humility.”

So how about this: I say, Thanks for what you did; it really encouraged me today.

And you say, That’s great to hear. I love knowing God is using His gifts to me to bless you.

I want to encourage my Reformed friends! God has used so many of your talents and spiritual gifts to glorify Himself to me. But using too much “total depravity,” just because some people don’t know it enough (see risk no. 2!), doesn’t help, and could even denigrate Christ’s grace.

Next week: Reformed Christians, trying to regain “the Gospel,” may overcorrect for past wrongs (again, see risk number 1) and define it too narrowly. Thus they may miss how the Gospel affects our views of the afterlife, and our callings today.

America’s Pastor is all over the place.

Seeking to understand what he’s getting at in his Oct. 1 sermon-by-video at the Desiring God conference, I’ve continued listening. And it’s nearly impossible to tell what his point is. As many others who’ve heard the message have said, Warren is all over the place, issuing platitudes rapid-fire. First he’s talking about you-do-this, then do that, here’s a verse to support whatever, now here’s another one that sort of applies from another translation, then over here …

Quoth the immortal (as a character) Captain Jean-Luc Picard, from Star Trek: The Next Generation: “He just kept — talking-in-one-long-incredibly-unbroken-sentence-moving-from-topic-to-topic-so-that-no-one-had-a-chance-to-interrupt-it-was-really-quite-hypnotic.”

Perhaps I’ve previously left unclear why this bothers me so much. Let me summarize what may be two underlying issues with what Warren said. First, Warren’s kind of topical preaching rushes over or ignores foundational truths of Scripture verses, and equally problematic, assumes the Gospel. Second, and closely related, that results in more than imbalance, but legalism and lies.

1. Warren doesn’t follow basic Biblical hermeneutics.

Though I enjoy and learn so much of God’s Word through verse-by-verse exegetical preaching, sometimes I do like a topical sermon. More often I enjoy reading doctrine-intensive books that focus on a particular issue, such as Christ’s atonement, or Christian vocation, or predestination.

For example, recently I ordered and received a new book by Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. Systematic theology on any Scriptural subject, by definition, tends to be topical. You collect all the Biblical texts you can find about a particular topic, such as how God uses civil governments to keep some order in a fallen world, and try to understand them all together.

Yet such understanding must be according to the Bible. And reading the Bible, exegetically or topically, requires certain “rules” of engagement. For example, you don’t take poetry and try to read it “literally.” That would actually be reading it nonliterally, like a liberal, for the Author (and authors) meant the text to be poetic, expressing truths in artistic forms that sometimes include metaphors. Another example: you don’t take a narrative meant to describe a historical event, and turn it into a “metaphor” for moral living, or a simple moral instruction for all Christians.

In his topic-surveying, Warren did not adhere to these rules of Scriptural engagement. That was probably the root problem of his talk: not that it wasn’t exegesis of a single Bible passage, but because despite appearances, his summary of verses and thoughts was not mindful of context. This includes the context of immediate verses, and Scripture’s main story-of-stories …

2. Warren did not even give passing reference to the Gospel.

Contrasting Warren with other pastors, whether they’re preaching topically or exegetically, will help to show and not just tell the difference more clearly. While other pastors, including those at the Desiring God conference, would constantly show how thinking about God constantly ties back to the Gospel — that Jesus, the perfect God-man, died for rebel sinners for His glory — Warren just assumed that.

Thus everything Warren said about discernment, ministry, bearing fruit, etc., became by default not a means of drawing closer to God for help, but a simple mantra to do-do-do more, try harder, here’s how I do it and you should too.

Perhaps without intending to be that way, Warren had lapsed into preaching legalism.

Without having inside information (thank God) about what the Devil is up to, it would seem one of his greatest successes is Christians assigning a certain image to Legalism, and then doing all they can to avoid that. In this view, the sin of Legalism is in behaviors or appearances: refusing to go to movies, “courting” instead of “dating,” wearing suits or dresses in church while also insisting every other Christian do this, preaching only Hell and damnation and not enough about God’s love, shunning non-Christians, homeschooling, and Pharisees (or Puritans) with beards, furrowed brows and hoods over their heads.

Avoid all those things, or looking like that, comes the assumption, and you won’t be a Legalist.

If I were the Devil, I’d be cackling and snorting sulfur at that. For without me even having to try, I’ve just seen a Christian, in the very name of “avoiding legalism,” act just like a legalist!

Author Michael Horton refers to Legalism is the “default setting” of any person. Even a Christian can fall back into this attitude. “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” Paul rhetorically asks the Galatians (Galatians 3:3). Treating the Gospel as assumed, or back in the past somewhere, after which point we can take over now and work, work, work to think better about God, ignore lies or even avoid legalism — all will lead right back to legalism.

And because the attitude of legalism is so inherent in our hearts, Christians in Christ must fight it constantly. I don’t think we’ll ever be free of it in this life. It’s like pride: constantly there, and annoyingly ready to claim one’s own awesomeness even at the thought of achieving humility!

But Warren did not focus his sermon on the Gospel. Overcorrecting, perhaps, for Christians who wrongly sit back and fatalistically wait for God to change them, Warren committed the opposite error. He pushed for work, work, work, succeed, bear fruit — all of the “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” parts but without Paul’s immediate reminder (in Philippians 2: 12-13) that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

If Warren could somehow be assured that his audience had so completely mastered the Holy-Spirit-works-in-you-because-of-Christ’s-salvation part, and they only needed to hear the you-must-do-this stuff, he could be excused for simply emphasizing one truth over another.

But as with talking about subjects like Law and Gospel, or God’s wrath and love, showing only one “side” doesn’t become just an imbalance. It becomes a lie.

Yesterday commentator Kaci Hill, in reply to a previous column about Warren, remarked:

Either he’s spinning half truths or he isn’t, I suppose. And half truths are lies.

Reluctantly, I would say Warren was preaching half-truths, which can too quickly become lies.

Next week I hope to go through more of what he said, particularly about the topics of what God expects of Christian leaders, and how we ought to practice media discernment. Does God really expect more than simple “faithfulness” from Christians? And for those who watch TV shows that show violence— are they really sinning and giving the Devil free reign over the brain?

Yes, I’m sorry to say that those are among the notions Warren repeats. And they leave me curious, not about why Warren is so popular, but why this impression exists that he’s one of those “nice” loving guys, a more-enlightened Christian leader who isn’t into legalism.

What little myths did Rick Warren, in his address at a certain conference, let slip through the cracks?

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. …)

Here’s a sequel to my column from last tax day. But this time Rick Warren has come and gone (by video) at the Desiring God conference this weekend, leaving attenders and bloggers alike to discern — one might hope with grace — what he said, or didn’t say.

One in-depth summary of Warren’s address comes from a friendly source: The Gospel Coalition. Contributor Owen Strachan overviewed what Warren said, then offered some reflections. Based on those, it unfortunately seems that everyone who faulted Warren not for compromising or rejecting the Gospel, but merely assuming the Gospel, was close to correct.

[T]he talk would have been benefited from a stronger organizing principle, namely, the gospel.  The word was rarely mentioned.  Jesus Christ was quoted and noted, but His centrality in all things had less place in the talk.  This is not to say by any stretch that Warren does not love Jesus Christ and preach His death and resurrection.  It is to say, however, that greater connection to the gospel as the foundation of Christian thinking and spiritual effort might have been made in this particular talk.¹

For a crowd of pastors and theologians, Warren emphasized the need to battle for one’s mind. Yet some have noted Warren’s penchant for trying to find a way to agree with almost everyone — at the expense of ignoring disagreements. As Michael Horton noted in April:

Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience.  To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the “solas” of the Reformation.  Yet he tells prosperity evangelist David Yonggi Cho, “I’ve read your books on Vision and Dreams – speak to pastors about how you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?…What advice would you give to a brand new minister?…Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?” (“Breakfast With David Yonggi Cho And Rick Warren,” Pastors.com).

[…] When USA Today asked him why Mormon and Jewish leaders are involved in his pastoral training programs, Rick Warren reportedly said, “I’m not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials.  I won’t try to change other denominations.  Why be divisive?” (USA Today, July 21, 2003).

But if Satan is really after our minds, as Warren said, wouldn’t some “divisiveness” be fitting?

Near Strachan’s end, he concludes that still no one knows why Warren is so inconsistent — and perhaps even (I am saying this, not Strachan) hypocritical, switching between modes so easily.

The talk also failed to settle questions, some of them weighty, about Warren’s ministry.  Clearly, the pastor felt no need to pull his punches on such controversial matters as his church’s massive baptismal numbers, preaching to “felt needs,” and the Saddleback approach to ministry and the church more broadly.  It would be fair to say that many attendees would want to hear Piper and Warren cover some of the motivations of Warren’s ministry and the more noteworthy concerns of the neo-reformed community related to it.  For example, why, if Warren reads rich, largely gospel-driven theology does it seem, at least in some places and times, that his ministry eschews this kind of theology?

I need to listen to Warren’s message myself. I imagine that, per many people’s predictions, he will be engaging and indeed even Biblical. For someone who already assumes the Gospel, there will be plenty of positive points. But for me, it will be very hard to separate what I hear from Warren in Talking-to-Christians-at-a-Conference-about-Thinking Mode from Warren’s other modes that depend on his audience — and which assume audience members know the Gospel.

Who doesn’t want to comment on U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent campaign-trail assertions that he is “a Christian by choice” who follows “the precepts of Jesus Christ”?

I do, though I hope to write most of that next week.

Meanwhile, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today” feature wonders about Obama’s “Golden Rule” version.

President Obama, not as part of a deliberate strategy to counter the false impression that he’s a Muslim, talked at some length during one of his back-yard shindigs about his ostensible Christian faith. Among things, the president said that “the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead–being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

Reader Steven Muchmore writes that he was “struck” by “the subtle misquoting of the Golden Rule”:

The most succinct statement of the Golden Rule in the Bible is Luke 6:31: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

There is a subtle, but rather significant, difference between saying “[I treat] others the way they would treat me” and “[I treat] others the way I would want them to treat me.”

The second is the Golden Rule. The first sounds more like the pagans and tax collectors from Matthew 5:43-47:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

Probably what Obama meant to say was: Do to others as you would have them to do you, unless they make over $250,000 a year.¹

Regardless, I can’t help observing that the “Golden Rule” is not unique to Christianity. Even atheists are among those who claim to follow the “Rule” (and they rush to assure Christians that you don’t need to be “religious” to be “moral”). But people seem to misunderstand that in raising the moral bar, Jesus was not merely setting a standard for someone to reach. Rather, following the “Golden Rule’s” one commandment 100 percent of the time is just as difficult as following the Ten Commandments perfectly enough to please God.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

James 2:10

In fairness, Obama later mentioned a stronger version of the Gospel that’s better than that offered by many professing Christians:

“I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.” ²

This may seem unfair, but for me Obama’s statement causes not reassurance about his faith but a cognitive dissonance. It’s like hearing similar confessions from the gossipy old lady, the fornicating youth-group member, the greedy businessman or the false-teacher televangelist who are not repentant for their un-Biblical beliefs and behavior.

So perhaps next week will bring more observations about that.