Have You Been 'TKO'd' By Jargons?

It’s been awhile since I heard the noun jar·gon (ˈjär-gən).  Jargon usually means the specialized language used by people in the same work or profession.  For instance doctors might have their own jargon.  Truckers have their jargon.  I think it might also relate to such concepts as clichés, or slang. It is rarely used in a positive sense.  It is almost pejorative, I think.   Its etymology is seemingly derived from the French "a chattering" (of birds).

C.S. Lewis’ ‘Screwtape Letters’ is really a Christian apologetic book.  It is satire to be sure and fictional.  It is comprised of letters. The senior demon, Screwtape, is writing to his underling, ‘Wormwood’ instructing him how to best tempt a man simply known as ‘the Patient’. In Chapter 1, we see the demon writing to the "student" demon about the following issue:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless." Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.[1]

Randy Newman, in his book, Questioning Evangelism, writes:

“When people say things that, given some thought, would prove to be nonsense, we must help them see the fallacy of their statements.”[2]   These thoughtless chatterings are what I would call:  common jargon or clichés.  Non-Christians have said to me things like:

“Religion is the cause of wars.”

“Religion is a crutch.”

“Religious people are brainwashed.”

“The Bible is full of contradictions (or errors).”

“The Bible is just written by men.”

“That’s your interpretation.”

Newman adds others like:   “I think all religions are the same;” “I think all people are basically good;” or “I would never tell anyone their religion is wrong.” Every single one of these statements require robust challenges.  They are simply common chatter - jargon.  Meaningless, empty statements devoid of any truth.

Sadly, we have let “jargon” win the day!   It’s time for Christians to think precisely and not surrender the argument to silly statements like those offered above.  We need to see it as C.S. Lewis did: a scheme of the Enemy.  Do not let Satan rob your solid arguments with commonly held platitudes that only amount to dribble.

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” (1 Peter 3:15, NIV)  

---

[1] http://www.truthseekersministries.org/files/Screwtape.pdf - Page 2

[2] Newman, Randy (2011-08-19). Questioning Evangelism (p. 57). Kregel Publications. Kindle Edition.

The Enslaving Nature of Socialism

The story of Joseph  and his life in Egypt is NOT  a story about civil economics.  It is a story of God preserving a godly seed in such a way that He would bring to this world, at just the right time, a Savior. I want to make that clear.   I do not run to Genesis 41 and following to garner insight about social economics – but without doubt we have a clear illustration of the reality of socialism in this story.

You know the story:  Pharaoh had a disturbing dream, to which Joseph revealed the interpretation.

“Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream. The seven lean, ugly cows that came up afterward are seven years, and so are the seven worthless heads of grain scorched by the east wind: They are seven years of famine.” (Genesis 41:25–27, NIV)

Pharaoh, astounded by the wisdom of this man set him up as governor of the land of Egypt.  Joseph's plan was profound.

“Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of abundance. They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so that the country may not be ruined by the famine.”” (Genesis 41:34–36, NIV)

It's not that difficult a plan to understand.  During the years of plenty, the state, collects one fifth of the harvest.  Let's call this a tax.  During the famine years, what has been stored will be sold back to the people.  You notice I call it a tax.  It is not an insurance scheme.  “And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.” (Genesis 41:57, NIV)

Fast forward past the events where Joseph's family settle in Egypt.  Let's run ahead to the time when the famine was having its main impact.  Notice the conditions:

“There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is all gone.”” (Genesis 47:13–15, NIV)

The famine has hit.  Now the money to buy the stored grain is gone.  What should they do?

“When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”” (Genesis 47:18–19, NIV)

Now here is the end result (please note it carefully): “So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.” (Genesis 47:20–21, NIV)  [Emphasis mine]

I do not believe that Joseph intentionally exploited the people.  They were very happy to live under these conditions. ““You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”” (Genesis 47:25, NIV)

I am convinced, that without reading any wicked motives into this story, that the end result of an socialist, economic system, by its very nature, enslaves the people.  When the state or nation become our benefactor, we sell a bit of our soul.  I am not arguing that capitalism is biblical.  I am arguing that a socialistic, welfare-driven state, enslaves its citizens.

Rather Than Eradicate, Election Emancipates the Will.

I have found the ministry of the Christian Research Institute more than helpful over the years.  The founder, Dr. Walter Martin was truly a gifted and effective apologist.   My admiration continues for Hank Hanegraaff who has carried the work further, even on to the daily broadcast entitled: The Bible Answer Man.   There is so much investigative and informative work that Hanegraaff does that is of great assistance to the Church, but woven in many of his answers to sincere enquirers includes a presupposition that I find disturbing.    Here's an example of part of a dialogue:

"God creates people, in such a way they can respond to the wooing of the Spirit or reject that.  If that were the case love would be rendered meaningless.  It would be forced.  It would be predicted with a certainty that could not be changed . . . we love Him because we desire to love Him." [1]

Now that quote has a mix of Truth and error.   There are also some presuppositions that are not readily obvious to the reader.  Hank brings to his understanding a refusal to accept the biblical teaching of unconditional Divine election of the redeemed.  By "unconditional" I mean that the Bible teaches that there were no indicators, no meritorious acts or decisions that motivated God to choose a people for Himself and give them to His Son.  The presupposition that Hanegraaff weaves into his answers is this: If God predetermines who will be saved, then the elect offer to God a meaningless, forced and irrelevant affection.

Hanegraaff like multitudes of others who hang their hat in the Arminian camp; the semi-Pelagian stronghold, have this erroneous view that Divine election produces robots.  Now my intent is not to attack Hanegraaff.  I find his ministry helpful and edifying.   He like a plethora of others makes the faulty assumption that for God to predestine whom will be saved (“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48, ESV), that assumes God robs them, if not does violence to their will.

It is an illogical contradiction to assume that election eliminates human volition.

The grace of God frees the will, it does not eradicate the will.   “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—” (Ephesians 2:5, ESV).  The logical conclusion to any system of theology that promotes the notion that God is standing before unbelieving mankind, offering saving grace, if they will but choose it, is this: no one would be saved.  Again, as I often do, I turn with tongue-in-cheek to that great Arminian hymn writer, Charles Wesley, who wrote:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Mr. Hanegraaff and all of like mind need to know that those who are given to the Son, by the Father, will come – and they will come willingly, gleefully, happily and without reservation.  They will come because for the first time in their lives they are free from the bondage of sin and the blight of evil.  They will come because for the first time in their lives they see a Treasure so vast and so magnificent that they will sell all to have Him (Matthew 13:44).

Perdition is designed for those who want, to not want God.  Heaven is designed for those who want to want God.  Predestination does not violate that at all.   The whole notion that Divine predestination creates a mass of humanity, kicking and screaming, as they are pulled reluctantly into Heaven is a travesty of Biblical understanding.  “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.” (Psalm 110:3, ESV).

David exclaimed: “I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart [Or for you set my heart free]!” (Psalm 119:32, ESV).   

 

---

[1] http://streaming.integrationworks.com:3000/archive/BAM20160114.mp3

More on Crudity.

In 1989 when John Piper was in prison for picketing an abortion clinic, he was overwhelmed by the crudity of language.  Wondering why there was so much profanity and coarse language he wrote these words:

"Here’s one suggestion: there is a kind of macho ego-satisfaction that comes from pointless swearing and foul, sacrilegious talk. The thing that makes it macho is that offensive language feels assertive and virile. So if you are weak and insecure, one way to camouflage it is to pepper your conversation with social no-nos. Using verbal no-nos is like playing with switch-blades and brass knuckles. It feels tough and gutsy. It gives an insecure person a sense of swagger. It’s the verbal form of spiked hair and torn jeans."

This is a common problem with us men.  Later in 2007 at the Annual Passion Conference, Piper himself crossed the line and had to publicly recant. He wrote, "I think if I had it to do over, I would not say it. On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus. That, it seems to me, is immature."

Why Don't the Unsaved Come to Church?

Why don’t “tax collectors”, “publicans”, “prostitutes” and “sinners” come to our Churches?   I’ve heard the question posed like that in various ways.  Will the community of unsaved people feel welcome in our churches; and if they don’t, why not? 

This type of question is raised by Philip Yancy in his book, “The Jesus I Never Knew.”[1]   In Chapter 8 of his book, entitled: Mission – A Revolution of Grace, he writes:

“As my class in Chicago read the Gospels and watched movies about Jesus' life, we noticed a striking pattern: the more unsavory the characters, the more at ease they seemed to feel around Jesus. People like these found Jesus appealing: a Samaritan social outcast, a military officer of the tyrant Herod, a quisling tax collector, a recent hostess to seven demons.

In contrast, Jesus got a chilly response from more respectable types. Pious Pharisees thought him uncouth and worldly, a rich young ruler walked away shaking his head, and even the open-minded Nicodemus sought a meeting under the cover of darkness.”[2]

He goes on to propose: “Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the church, I told my class.”

Now I am compelled to interact with Yancy regarding the issue.  As someone who has had to answer this query several times, I think it is necessary to point out something.  I will do it in this provocative way:

I don’t expect “tax collectors, prostitutes, drug addicts, drunkards, etc. to come into my church worship services.

I’m not suggesting that Yancy stated that.  The problem is that when we read that Jesus,  “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’” (Luke 7:34, NIV); we immediately contemporize the scenario and see Jesus partying with worldly patrons during the church meeting.  That is a seriously incorrect reading for two reasons:

1. The assembly of the saints for worship and meetings for biblical instruction are never depicted in Scripture as a missionary environment, an outpost for the lost and lonely to find refuse; and

2. The context where Jesus met freely with “sinners” was in their homes and in the community.  For example we read “While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”” (Mark 2:15–16, NIV)

I think the point that ought to be asked is “why do I not have more ‘publicans and sinners’ in my home; or why am I not invited more often to their home?”   In Luke 15:1–2 (NIV), we read:

¹ Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. ² But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

Yancy writes, “What would it take, I asked in closing, for church to become a place where prostitutes, tax collectors, and even guilt-tinged Pharisees would gladly gather?”[3]  If Yancy were to mean the church mobilized, or would mean the people of God scattered in their communities, I would think this is an important question.

If Yancy means why doesn’t the church on Sunday mornings, or Wednesday evenings become a gathering for the “prostitutes, tax collectors, and even the Pharisees”, I would suggest that this question will likely never get answered, or should be answered.   Now I’m not suggesting that the “lost” should not, nor will not, come to a Christian worship service or meeting.  They have and they do.  We thank God for that.  But the man who is overcome with alcohol abuse or the woman who is tired of lovers gone bad is not likely to wander into our 11:00 o’clock service.

But, on the other hand, if my life was characterized as Jesus’ was “a friend of sinners”, then perhaps through the amazing grace of the Gospel, I will have the opportunity to share this glorious hope with an alcoholic or a drug dealer; and they will see and treasure Christ, the Savior.   As Kevin DeYoung writes, “Jesus was a friend of sinners in that he came to save sinners and was very pleased to welcome sinners who were open to the gospel, sorry for their sins, and on their way to putting their faith in Him.”[4]

It is then these folks who have “come just as they are” and found the life-transforming power of Christ, who will not only delight in Sunday morning attendance, but will find ongoing grace and strength in the ministry of the worship service and church meetings.

Indeed it is the Church mobilized and scattered into the community that should be known as those who frequent the lives of “publicans and sinners.”  As Christians willing and eagerly rub shoulders with the lost and dying; have them in their homes and lives; and lay down their forced respectability long enough to join them in their homes -- then and only then, will amazing things happen.

PS:  I'm far more concerned about the mass of professing Christians who rarely attend Church services.

---

[1] Yancy, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1995

[2] Yancy, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1995, Page 147

[3] Yancy, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1995, Page 149

[4] http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2014/03/04/jesus-friend-of-sinners-but-how/

Not A Hint of Crudity.

In Ephesians 5:3–7, Paul sets the speech bar high for Christians.  There are some things that there should not even be a "hint" of.  The old translations used the phrase "let it not be named among you."  It is the Greek word ὀνομάζω which can properly be translated that way. The idea is that there are certain behaviors that are not fitting for God's people.  We of course are not surprised that the Apostle would include sexual immorality.  That's a given!  But then he goes on into some other areas:  "obscenity, foolish talk or coarse [or "crude"] joking."

As I stand condemned in the docket, I immediately feel defensive and ask, "Can't God take a joke?" Yes He can!  A little humor is good.  “A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.” (Proverbs 17:22, NIV)

I remember my father speaking of statesmen in the past eras.  These were men who could speak with clarity and dignity but could avoid the coarse jesting and rude jokes that is so common in the public discourse today.  Sadly, silly and crude language has left the hallowed halls of the legislatures and moved into the holy domains of Christendom.  I admit that I find it very easy, especially among other men, to speak in ways that I wouldn't be caught saying in front of a lady – or in public.  That is reproachful. Masculinity is not somehow honored through rude and coarse jokes.  When I make silly remarks about sexuality, the normal ablutions of the human body and other matters that require delicate and precise words, both in content and context, I easily enter into sinful impropriety.  There should not even be a hint of that!

My dad used to tell me that coarse and crude language simply reflected bad vocabulary skills.  He was right but Paul takes it further.  Paul says that there should not even be a hint of it.  Paul says that it is inconsistent with Christian behavior.

Real men speak with dignity and accuracy.  I feel deep sorrow for not speaking, at times, as a real man. 

Lord Jesus, I fail in many ways, Lord, especially with my words.  I would be lying if I denied my sins to You. Instead I stand accountable before You for every idle word I have spoken and will be justified or condemned by my very words. Forgive me Lord for any corrupt word that has proceeded out of my mouth and has grieved the Holy Spirit.   I thank you that as I confess my sins before You, You will be faithful to forgive me my sins and cleanse me of all unrighteousness.  Thank you that you do not condemn me because I belong to Christ Jesus.

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:29–30, NIV)  

Church Discipline

Almost 8 years ago I wrote and preached on the topic of Church Discipline.   On Sunday, January 10, 2016 I preached on this topic again, as it was contained within the exposition of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. If you would like to review the transcripts of my earlier efforts in this regard, you can read them in 3 parts at the following links:

1. God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 1

In this blog I examine what I call "preventative" and "private" discipline.

2. God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 2

In this blog I discuss the texts dealing with a third type of discipline. "If all attempts to restore fail then the individual loses the privileges and protection of being right with Christ and His Church. Hopefully the misery that results will bring them to repentance. They are not to be avoided. They are to be loved and shown kindness. They are to be objects of your affection and mercy. They forfeit the privileges of Christian membership but they do not forfeit your love."

3. God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 3

"To seek to bring correction upon another person without the right attitude is encourage failure. If you do not find it in your heart to love someone; if you do not find it in your heart to thank God for the evidence of grace in their lives; if you do not find it in your heart to find hope and confidence in God’s faithfulness – you will be a very poor instrument of peace – and so will I."

9 Things You Should Know about the Story of Noah

9 Things You Should Know about the Story of Noah - Joe Carter

"Darren's Aronofksy's new film Noah, which opens in theaters tomorrow, has been criticized for not being faithful to the biblical narrative. But how much of the story do most people remember? Here are nine things you should know about the story of Noah:

1. The story of Noah is told is chiastic parallelism (or chiasmus), a figure of speech in which the order of the terms in the first of two parallel clauses is reversed in the second. If you assign the letters A and B to the first appearance of the key words or phrases and A' and B' to their subsequent appearance, they follow what is commonly referred to as an A-B-B-A pattern.

A chiasm in the story of Noah and the flood (Genesis 6.10-9.19):"

To read more click HERE.

_______________________________________________

Joe Carter is an editor for The Gospel Coalition and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator.

More About the Arc after the Ark!

The Genesis account of the flood, precedes this apocalyptic type event with these words: “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” (Genesis 6:17–18, ESV).

After this deluge of indescribable proportion we read these words, "But I will establish my covenant . . .."  What is that covenant?  The terms of the covenant are found in Genesis 9:8–11 (ESV),

"⁸ Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, ⁹ 'Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, ¹⁰ and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. ¹¹ I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.'”

The promise of the covenant is plain: God clearly obligates Himself to the promise that "that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” ^[1]  God restates this same thing in verse 15.  In fact four times the emphatic "never again" is used in this covenant.  The commitment of God is through everlasting generations meaning that it is in effect today.   This covenant reminds us and reinforces the truth that God alone is the life-giving sustainer of all life. 

There is a real and important sense that this is an “unconditional” covenant.  I find no "if" clause anywhere in the account.   Having said that, the preservation of the earth did come with responsibilities – or terms, if you will.  In Genesis 9:1–5 (ESV), we read:

¹ And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. ² The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. ³ Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. ⁴ But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ⁵ And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

Indeed there are several terms or responsibilities placed upon mankind.  I find at least 6:

1. There is the responsibility to be "fruitful and multiply". 

2. There is the responsibility to rule over creation.  A creation where now the animal kingdom is given the "fear of man".

3. There is given the responsibility to kill and eat of the animals that God has given.

4. There is given the responsibility to view all human life as inestimable in value.

5. There is a responsibility not to consume blood.

6. There is the responsibility of society to anticipate retribution on all who take life illicitly.

Although there is no "condition" under which God will go back on on His promise. This does not mean that God will never again destroy the earth, however. He has promised to one day destroy the earth by fire (2 Peter 3:10, 11; Revelation 20:9,21:1 ) in the terrible events known as the “day of the Lord.”  I have no reason to believe that God will forget the responsibilities He has given to mankind.  It strikes me as somewhat poignant that modern society has dismissed the design and goal of marriage, that being procreation; they have protected animals and killed humans without fear of justice.

Today we see a rainbow and we are (rightly, may I add) reminded of God's faithfulness and His sustaining grace in creation.  But we should also be reminded that God is holy and hates sin.  God will not let the wicked go unpunished.  We should also be reminded that He has provided an Ark for us who is a Person, not a ship.  Christ came to save us who are all rebellious, wicked, murderous idolaters from the   “wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).  The invitation is to be united to the Ark. 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Ge 9:11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The Impotent God of Philip Yancy.

I was given this book for Christmas.  I probably wouldn't buy a Philip Yancey book.  Not that I'm ungrateful.  On the good-better-best scale I'd rather read the latter, not the former.  Yancy tends to lean heavily into liberal Christianity and is recently noted as embracing some issues that orthodox Christianity should not endorse.  However it is good to read authors you don't normally read and its even good to read authors that will hone discernment skills.

Chapter 4 of the book probably caused me to think the deepest and longest. Here's a paragraph:

"As I look back on the three temptations, I see that Satan proposed an enticing improvement. He tempted Jesus toward the good parts of being human without the bad: to savor the taste of bread without being subject to the fixed rules of hunger and of agriculture, to confront risk with no real danger, to enjoy fame and power without the prospect of painful rejection—in short, to wear a crown but not a cross. (The temptation that Jesus resisted, many of us, his followers, still long for.)" [1]

I think that's an excellent assessment of the narrative in Matthew 4.  However Yancy's conclusion is troubling.  He writes, "The Temptation in the desert reveals a profound difference between God' s power and Satan' s power. Satan has the power to coerce, to dazzle, to force obedience, to destroy. Humans have learned much from that power, and governments draw deeply from its reservoir . . . God' s power, in contrast, is internal and noncoercive. "You would not enslave man by a miracle, and craved faith given freely, not based on miracle," said the Inquisitor to Jesus in Dostoevsky' s novel. Such power may seem at times like weakness. In its commitment to transform gently from the inside out and in its relentless dependence on human choice, God's power may resemble a kind of abdication. As every parent and every lover knows, love can be rendered powerless if the beloved chooses to spurn it." [2]

One cannot help but see Yancy's theology and presuppositions.  Are we faced with observing a loving God, somewhat like a passionate suitor who constantly makes appeals to his reluctant objects of affection, hoping that their supreme characteristic, their human will, will someday bend to his favor?  Is God dependent upon the human will? Does that not make the Creator the pawn of the creature?

Is God an impotent, vexed but patient lover hoping that someday, somehow, those whom He loves will surrender their obstinate will and accept His free offer of love?  Is the effectiveness and power of God's love "rendered powerless" by my exceptionally omnipotent will?  Would this notion not be treated as heresy in years past?

Yancy's aim in this book is to reveal to us the humanity of Jesus.  It's a good goal and there is a lot of excellent insight in this book.  But when we assess the humanity of Jesus by our human ideals and notions, we compromise not only His Incarnation, but His Deity.  We must also comprehend His humanity through the spectacle of Divine inspiration.  Indeed our Savior showed us in the Temptation that there are no shortcuts to be fully human.  There is but one path and that is via dolorosa.  It is only through faith in the perfectly human, substitute Savior, who is risen from the dead and reigning that we can be fully human.  And this Redeemer is in no way handcuffed by human volition to save all whom "the Father has given Him."

Or as Charles Wesley so theologically and profoundly wrote:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.[3]

The "diffused" eye of Almighty God is more than able to set captives free -- indeed captives to their own "free will".  The jesus that Yancy portrays in Chapter 4 of this book is not a Jesus I knew either, nor a Jesus the Bible reveals.



__________________________________________________
1. Yancy, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1995, Page 40-41
2. Ibid, Page 43
3. https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/296

Not A Resolution-Kind-Of-Guy!

I`m not a "New Year`s Resolution" kind-of-guy!  I never have been. I follow a "one-day-at-a-time" kind-of-lifestyle.  When it comes to rest and recreation I never run a 120 kilometers and hour waiting for that one-in-a-year holiday.  I think every day must have it's built in "sabbath(s)".  So too with resolutions!

Here's a daily regime of considerations that I think through and pray through every day -- every morning. God has graced me with the discipline to do this.  I am not always obedient to the ideals though.  But this is my high-water mark:

1. Repent of every known sin.	I will start this day by fully repenting of all known sin against God.	James 4:4–10
2. Forsake all questionable activities.	I will ask God to enable me to say “No” to every habit or activity I cannot be absolutely sure is approved of God.	1 Corinthians 10:31; Titus 2:11-12
3. Make right any wrongs to others.	I will try to correct any wrongs between myself and others.	Matthew 6:14–15
4. Commune with God in Prayer and be personally instructed in His Word	I will spend time with God in prayer and sincerely meditating on His Word	Psalm 119:107 & 1 Thessalonians 5:17
5. Trust God to use me as an encourager to others.	I will ask God (and expect that God) to use me as an effective instrument of revival in someone's life.	Psalm 51:10–13

“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” (Matthew 6:34, ESV)