Lutheran Reformission

Heaven or Resurrection?

2009-11-05T16:53:00.002-06:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about death, heaven, and resurrection:

Is it Heaven or resurrection?

Reformation

2009-10-22T14:44:00.002-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on Reformation Day

Remembering Reformation Day

Halloween

2009-10-08T15:02:00.002-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines on Halloween:

How to Approach Halloween Festivities

The Shack

2009-09-24T15:19:00.003-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines on The Shack:

The Merits of Reading The Shack

Hardened Heart

2009-09-10T15:25:00.001-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines on the hardening of Pharaoh's Heart:

What is "Hardening of Heart?"

Bible Translations

2009-08-27T15:30:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Bible Translations:

Q: With so many Bible translations available, which one should I buy? What are the differences between them?

The Bible was originally written in Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament) with a few verses in both testaments being in the Aramaic language. My church denomination and some others still require their pastors to learn to read Greek and Hebrew as part of their training. The English Bibles we read today are translations of these original languages.

When choosing a Bible translation, there are several factors to consider. The two primary factors are accuracy and readability. Buyers also might want to consider the preferred translation used by their church or other Christians with whom they study the Bible. As a Christian advances in their study of the Bible, they often find it beneficial to have several different English translations available to them for comparison.

During a trip to Algona’s local Christian bookstore this week, I was able to count seven English translations available for sale, and as I look at my office bookshelf, I find that I have fifteen English translations of the Bible at my disposal, in addition to Greek, Hebrew, German, and Spanish copies. In addition to these many translations of the Bible text, many of the translations have numerous optional resources, including cross references, study notes, devotional content, and other additional content.

Most pastors and Bible teachers place the accuracy of a translation to be of first importance when choosing a Bible to purchase. Some Bibles translate each word literally, while others may translate several words together in order to better convey the meaning in English. In addition to the varying translations, there are also bible paraphrases, which tell the story in the translator’s own words rather than literally translating. While these paraphrases, such as The Message, and The Living Bible can be easy to understand for casual reading, they are not good choices for deeper study because they rely heavily on the English author’s understanding of the words rather than the Bible’s original way of saying it. Translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), and New King James Version (NKJV) are highly respected for their accuracy in translating the Bible.

Although accuracy is an important consideration, a Bible translation also has to be understandable to the reader. For example, the King James Version of the Bible is highly accurate, but some people find it difficult to read because of the older language it uses. The New International Version (NIV), the best-selling Bible translation in America, is highly renowned for its ease of reading. Other translations, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) are not very difficult to read and study, but can be somewhat awkward to read out-loud in public. The New Living Translation (NLT) and English Standard Version (ESV) are also known as very readable translations.

A good balance between accuracy and readability is usually the goal. An accurate translation you cannot understand easily and a translation which is readable, but inaccurate will both be poor choices. The guidance of your own pastor, especially if he can read Greek and Hebrew, is a valuable tool in determining which translation is right for your needs. My personal preference in a translation to read aloud publicly or for casual reading at home is the ESV, and my preference for in-depth study is the NASB.

When picking out your new Bible, don’t forget to research all of the available options, such as cover materials, study notes, and other resources. A Bible which is attractive and has the options and resources you desire will be much more appealing to study with regularity. Since my current Bible has begun to literally fall to pieces, I am excitedly anticipating the arrival of my new copy of The Lutheran Study Bible (An ESV Bible from Concordia Publishing House), which I pre-ordered several months ago to be delivered when it is released in October.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Prayer

2009-08-13T15:53:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about prayer:

Q: What is it that motivates God to hear and answer prayers?

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells a story which illustrates the answer to just such a question:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. [11] The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. [12] I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' [13] But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' [14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14 ESV)

God’s choice to hear and answer prayers is not founded on anything that we do. God does not hear our prayers because of their length, or how often we ask. (Matthew 6:7) He doesn’t listen based on our eloquence or the beauty of our words. He does not even take into account who is praying the prayer, other than whether the person is a Christian. A pastor, elder, or deacon’s prayer is no more worthy before God than that of any other Christian (although the prayers of pastors and Christian friends can be of great help in times of sickness or distress which make it hard for us to concentrate on our own prayers). Even though places like church buildings or chapels help us to focus on God in our prayers, He does not hear our prayers based on the location where we pray.

Nothing we do can force God to hear our prayers, and nothing of our own making renders our prayers more acceptable to Him. Like the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable, we cannot rely on our own goodness or worthiness to have our prayers heard, because no matter how good we are, all people fall short of God’ standard, which is perfection. God hears the prayers of Christians solely because they have been forgiven by Jesus. When God hears the prayers of Christians, He does so only because of what Jesus has done by living perfectly according to God’s law, then being executed by crucifixion, even though He was innocent of any wrongdoing. This is why many church prayers end by saying “through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord…” any many Christians end their personal prayers, “in Jesus’ name.”

God is so good to us, that He even gives us the things we need when we forget or neglect to pray for them (Matthew 6:8). He also gives the Holy Spirit to Christians who gives and strengthens our faith in Jesus and helps us to pray, especially in times of weakness (Romans 8:26-27). God not only gives us prayer as a way to bring our needs to Him, but also as a way to thank Him for His blessings and intercede for the needs of our neighbors. He does not command prayer as a rigid duty, but instead, gives it to us as a gracious gift, and He Himself provides everything necessary for our prayers to be heard and answered for those who trust in Jesus.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Angels

2009-07-30T15:54:00.002-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Angels:

Q: Are angels real and how much do we really know about them?

Angels have probably been one of the most popular subjects in spirituality over the years. On one hand, angels are real beings, described by the Bible, but on the other hand, some popular beliefs regarding angels are no more than superstition or speculation. Because we see so many examples in the Bible of angels in action, there are many things we can know about them. First, we know that angels were created by God. Because God says in the book of Job that they were present when God “laid the foundations of the earth,” they were probably created on the first day that God began to create the world.

Angels are not just a spiritual phenomenon, but they are individual, personal beings. The Bible shows us that angels have names, such as Michael and Gabriel, but they are neither male nor female and do not marry or reproduce—something Jesus reveals to us in the Gospels. They experience joy when sinners repent, and they exist to serve God and follow His commands.

There are also different types or ranks among the angels. The picture we usually imagine of an impressive glowing angel with wings dressed in white would probably resemble the Seraphim. (Incidentally, the Bible never describes an angel who looks like a chubby, winged toddler.) Seraphim surround God’s throne in heaven and their task is to praise and glorify Him. They are described in Revelation 4 and Isaiah 6. Cherubim are angels who act as servants to God. They assist in carrying out God’s will and His commands in heaven and on earth, as seen in Genesis 3:24 and Ezekiel 1. Another class of angels, described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9 is the Archangel.

We do not know how many angels there are, but we do know from a statement made by Jesus (Matthew 26:53) that there are at least 72,000. All angels were originally created by God to serve Him, but soon after creation, one angel began a rebellion in heaven, leading one-third of the angels to oppose God. These angels were condemned for their rebellion and are now known as demons. Michael, the Archangel is described as fighting against Satan and the demons.

The angels’ task is to praise God (Isaiah 6, Revelation 5) and carry out His will in the world (Revelation 7 & 14). They defend earthly rulers who God approves (Daniel 6) and destroy the enemies of God’s people (Exodus 14, Acts 12). They watch over the households of believers and guard their children (Job 1, Psalm 34, Matthew 18), and they guard and protect Christians from the time of their Baptism until their death (Psalm 91, Luke 16, Jude 9). When Jesus returns, the angels will separate the condemned from the saved and carry out His punishments against them (Matthew 13 & 25), and they will escort the saved into the eternal life.

One of the most popular myths about angels is that people can communicate with them or seek their guidance. There are even services available where, much like a psychic reading, a person claims that they can connect you with the angels and (for a fee, of course) tell you what they have to say. This sort of practice is entirely contrary to the teachings of Scripture. God did send messages to Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, John, and some of the prophets through angels, but He has never promised that He will do the same for us. Additionally, those Biblical saints heard directly from the angels and did not require the assistance of a “professional.”

Furthermore, Paul informs us in 1 Timothy that, “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” The fact is that since Jesus has died and risen for us, Christians do not have need of anyone to stand between them and God to assist in communication. Christians have the privilege to hear God’s Word for them directly from the Bible and to speak back to Him directly through prayer. Jesus, not any angel, is the only mediator who can connect us with God the Father.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Jesus' Teen Years

2009-07-16T15:56:00.001-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Jesus' teen years:

Q: What do we know about Jesus’ child and teen years?

The Bible gives us a detailed account of Jesus’ birth in the Gospel of Luke. This is probably one of the most familiar portions of scripture for most Christians because of tradition of reading it on Christmas Eve. It is likely that many readers even memorized portions of this chapter of Luke as a part of their childhood participation in Christmas Eve services. The New Testament Gospels also give us generous amounts of information on the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, which occurred between His Baptism by John at age 30 and His death, resurrection, and ascension about 3 years later. The time between Jesus’ birth and His thirtieth year, however, does not receive a great deal of attention in the Bible, but it does show us a few memorable events.

As a young child, Jesus’ is visited by three Magi from the East who came to worship Him and to bring Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We often see these wise men portrayed in Christmas decorations and manger scenes as being present at the stable where Jesus was born, at the same time as the shepherds, but the Gospel of Matthew tells us that their visit came somewhat later than the shepherds, while Jesus was a young child. As a result of the attention brought by the Magi, King Herod, became afraid for his throne and sent soldiers to Bethlehem in an attempt to do away with this “new king” which the Magi were seeking, but God rescued Jesus and His family from this threat by warning Joseph in a dream and instructing him to flee to Egypt with Jesus and Mary.

From these events, we know that Jesus spent His infancy in Bethlehem, but His early childhood years would have been lived in Egypt. When King Herod died, Joseph again received a series of dreams which instructed Him to return to Israel, and ultimately to settle in Nazareth, which we typically think of as Jesus’ home town. The Bible also portrays Jesus and His family as faithful worshippers of God who observed the sacrifices, feasts, and festivals specified in the Old Testament and even traveled on pilgrimages to Jerusalem to do so. On one of these trips to Jerusalem for Passover, when Jesus was twelve years old, the family realized while they were returning to Nazareth that Jesus was no longer with them. When they went back and found Him, He was at the temple, discussing theology with the priests and teachers there, who were amazed by His knowledge.

Several books outside of the Bible try to fill in these years of Jesus’ life with other stories, such as one where Jesus strikes a playmate dead, then at the pleading of Joseph, raises him back to life. In another account, Jesus is portrayed as making a bird from clay, then bringing it to life. These other “gospels”, such as the “Gospel of Thomas” are commonly believed to be forgeries, though, because they were written several centuries after Jesus life and by people who were not eyewitnesses to the events.

After Luke tells the story of Jesus at the temple he says that, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” The most likely reason that so little is said about Jesus’ childhood years in the Bible is that they were completely normal. He grew physically, learned, and acted like any of the other children. In fact, his early life was so normal that when He returned to Nazareth to preach later in life, the people there were surprised and did not accept His authority because they just saw Him as “Mary’s son.”

There is, however, one exception to the ordinary nature of Jesus’ childhood years. The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was “tempted as we are, yet without sin.” While Jesus life as a child and teenager was completely normal, it was lived differently than ours because He kept God’s commands perfectly, while we fail to do so throughout our lives. It is this perfect life that He lived, which makes him an acceptable substitute to be crucified for us, and it is because of this sinless life that death could not hold Him and He rose again on the third day.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Tiller Killing

2009-07-02T15:50:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the killing of George Tiller and Lutheran stances on abortion:

Does the Bible approve of killing?

Ascension

2009-06-18T15:57:00.002-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Ascension:

Q: If the Bible says that Jesus ascended into Heaven after He rose from the dead, why do we always hear it said that He is present with us now?

The Bible tells us that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, but rose to life again on Sunday morning. After He rose from the dead, He appeared to hundreds of people, including His disciples, over the course of the next 40 days (Luke 24, John 20-21). On the fortieth day, while Jesus was talking with His disciples, “He began to be lifted up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight.” (Acts 1:9) Several New Testament passages also speak of Jesus as having ascended into Heaven and that He is “seated at the right hand of God the Father…” as many Christians confess in the Apostles’ Creed.

In other places, Jesus promises that He will be with His disciples and all Christians. He says, “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20). He also promises, “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20) When the apostle Paul writes letters to churches in the New Testament, He often includes a blessing which says that God will be with those who read the letter. (Sometimes He says Jesus, other times God, Lord, or the Holy Spirit.)

On one hand, the Gospels and the book of Acts clearly teach that Jesus did ascend into Heaven. On the other hand, Jesus’ own words, as well as the letters of Paul clearly teach that God will be with Christians until Jesus comes again on the last day. How can these both be true?

We know that God is present everywhere. In Jeremiah 23:24, God says, “’Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him? …Do I not fill heaven and earth?’” Since Jesus is God, He is present in all times and places, but when He makes the promises mentioned above, He is talking specifically to His followers, not to all people. The fact that God is present everywhere is the same for all people whether they follow Jesus or not. The presence Jesus is promising is something special that is not true for the rest of the world.

Sometimes when we are apart from a friend or family member, they say that they are with us in Spirit, and we often speak of deceased loved ones as being with us in our memory. Here, though, Jesus is promising far more than that we will remember Him or that he will be with us “in spirit.” Before Jesus died, He promised His disciples that after He had risen, He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of the things He had said (John 14-16), and just before He ascended, He again promised to send the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:8).

Whenever we read or hear the Bible, (or remember what we have read from it, or hear a friend talking about Jesus, hear a song which talks about Him, etc.) God sends the Holy Spirit, through whom Jesus becomes supernaturally present with us.

Furthermore, on the night before He was crucified, Jesus took bread and said, “This is my body.” Then He took wine and said, “This is my blood.” He then instructed His disciples to keep on doing this in remembrance of Him. Whenever Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper (a.k.a. Communion or Eucharist), Jesus body and blood become present in a special way among them. Since Jesus is both God and human, even His human body can be present all over the world at the same time.

When we go about our day, Jesus is present with us, just as He is with every person, but for Christians, Jesus comes to us in an extraordinary way through the God’s Word, the Bible, and when we take part in Lord’s Supper.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

The Sacraments

2009-06-04T15:36:00.001-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Sacraments:

The definition of Sacrament

Satan

2009-05-21T16:01:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Satan:

Q: Is the Devil a real being, a mythical character, or a symbol of evil in the world?

The Bible describes a being, most frequently called Satan or the Devil, who is portrayed as the originator of sin and evil in the world. Other names, such as Lucifer or Beelzebub, are also used in reference to this being, as well as “prince of this world,” “god of this world,” “evil one,” and other descriptive phrases. His work is described as accusing (Zechariah 3:1-2) and tempting (1 Chronicles 21:1) humans.

The Bible tells us some things about Satan with clarity and certainty. He was originally created by God as an angel. At some point after the heavens and earth were created (Genesis 1-2), he led a rebellion in heaven against God, and he was cast out of heaven, along with one third of the angels, because they had followed him in rebelling against God (Revelation 12). These angels are now known as demons. The images of a red, hoofed, devil with a pitchfork and horns are based more in human imagination than Biblical teaching. Instead, Satan and the demons are spiritual beings without bodies.

After he was cast out of heaven, Satan took on the appearance of a serpent in order to tempt the first humans, Adam and Eve, to sin against God (Genesis 3). They followed his temptation, and Satan and the demons continue to tempt humans even today. However, contrary to popular opinion, the primary goal of Satan and his demons is not specifically to entice humans to immoral behavior, but rather to persuade them to regard anything more highly than the One True God and to trust in anything other than Jesus for salvation. (2 Peter 3:8-9) Satan personally tempted Jesus during the 40 days He spent in the wilderness after being baptized (Matt. 4, Luke 4), by attempting to persuade Him away from His mission of being sacrificed for the sin of the world.

Greek and Roman mythology described a wide variety of gods, some good and some evil. In light of this framework, it is a common misunderstanding that the Christian God is the “good god” and Satan is the “evil god,” and that they are in competition with one another. In contrast, the Bible teaches that there is only one God and that Satan is merely one of his creatures gone bad. While Satan is the enemy of humans and of God, he is not an equal adversary. He has already been defeated by Jesus (Colossians 2:15) and is awaiting eternal punishment (Revelation 20). In contrast to a related misunderstanding, Satan is also not the ruler of the place of eternal punishment. Although he is often imagined to be the one in charge of Hell, tormenting its captives, he is actually one of the inmates rather than its ruler.

The Bible often describes a far different Satan than centuries of human imagination have led us to envision. In spite of the fact that many people have attempted to portray this biblical character as symbolic or mythical, the Bible clearly describes him as being an actual spiritual being. Although he is real and has some degree of power, he is infinitely inferior to the True God, and those who trust Jesus for salvation need have no fear of Him.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Apocrypha and False Gospels

2009-05-07T16:01:00.001-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Apocrypha and False Gospels:

Q: What is the “Apocrypha,” and why isn’t it included in my Bible?

The typical Bible which you find in a book store will generally consist of two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you examine a Bible which was printed for purchase by Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians, it will contain 13-15 additional books between the Old and New Testaments, depending on how they are numbered. In general, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians consider these books as part of the Bible, while the remainder of Christian groups do not. Many Christian scholars use the term “Apocrypha, which means “something hidden,” as a title for this group of books because of the disagreement about whether they are properly considered part of the Bible.

Although most Christians outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches do not consider these books to be part of the Bible, they do still hold them in high regard. Martin Luther included these books when he translated the Bible into German, although he set them apart as an appendix, and John Calvin still approved of Christians studying the Apocrypha, even though he did not consider it Scripture. The primary reasons given for distinguishing the Apocrypha from the Bible are that it contains teachings which are not found in the rest of the Bible, and Jesus, Paul, and other New Testament authors do not quote from them or mention them as Scriptural. Christians generally consider the Apocrypha to be valuable historical information and a useful view into the religious thought during the 400+ years between the end of the Old Testament and the birth of Jesus, but the majority of churches do not consider them as part of the Bible itself.

Q: I have also heard much said recently about other books, such as “The Gospel of Mary” and “The Gospel of Thomas.” Why aren’t these included in my Bible?

So-called “gospels” and other questionable books like these have been made popular recently by news stories and books or movies such as The Da Vinci Code. Unlike the Apocrypha, which are respected as authentic books, even if not Scriptural, these other books are widely acknowledged to be inauthentic or even forgeries. While the four Gospels found in our Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are known to have been written by Jesus’ followers within decades after His resurrection, these other gospels are known to have been written at least 300-400 years later. They were usually written by people called Gnostics, who were followers of a teaching which departed from Christianity, and they often used the names of well-known Biblical figures like Peter, Thomas, Mary, or Judas in the title of their “gospels” to make them look authentic, even though those figures had died centuries before. Unlike the Apocrypha, which Christians respect in spite of excluding it from their Bibles, these Gnostic “gospels” are generally regarded as fantasy, forgery, or fraud without any value for the student of the Bible.
You may also encounter other ancient non-biblical books such as the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the letters of Polycarp, which are of a far different sort than the false “gospels.” These are pieces of literature written during New Testament times, but not included in the Bible because the author was not an Apostle of Jesus, the author was unknown, or they were written at too late a date. Christians do not consider these equal to the Bible, but unlike the Gnostic “gospels,” these writings are considered useful history and are often seen as important information about what the church was like during its earliest years.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Confirmation

2009-04-23T16:03:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Confirmation:

Q: What is “confirmation”? What churches practice it and what does it mean? Does the Bible give any instructions about confirmation?

Confirmation is a church tradition practiced by many types of Christians, but there is considerable variety about its details among different churches, even between different congregations within the same denomination. Confirmation usually involves a time of instruction for the person to be confirmed, an opportunity for them to publicly state their agreement with the beliefs of their church, and a blessing by the clergy overseeing the confirmation. Confirmation is usually practiced by church denominations which baptize the infant children of their members. Because the child is not old enough to speak, sponsors (sometimes called godparents) and the congregation speak for the child at his baptism, and at confirmation, he speaks for himself that he agrees with what had been said at his baptism.

In the ancient church, as soon as new Christians were baptized, a minister would then place oil on their forehead and bless them. As it became more common for those baptized to be infants and children, this anointing and blessing were postponed until a later age and became what we know as confirmation. Some churches also see the mention of “laying on of hands” (Heb. 6:2, 1 Tim. 4:14 & 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6) in the Bible as a reference to confirmation. The words “confirmand” or “catechumen” are used to refer to those preparing for confirmation, and they may study a book called a “catechism.” Some churches require that confirmations be overseen by a Bishop or other church leaders, while in many others, confirmations are overseen by the local pastor.

Since there are no commands in the Bible concerning the specific details of confirmation, local congregations have considerable freedom, and the variety seen in this tradition is understandable. The most typical age for confirmation among churches I have encountered is approximately 14 years or eighth grade, although it is not uncommon for churches to choose an age a few of years either side of this. On some occasions, a church may evaluate students’ readiness individually, without considering age. Many churches also make a practice of confirming baptized adults who come into their church from another denomination. In some churches, confirmation is also connected with beginning to participate in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist, Communion), but in other traditions, children begin to take part at younger ages and are confirmed several years later.

Some churches, such as Roman Catholic and Episcopal, consider confirmation to be a Sacrament, while others, such as those from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, do not. In some churches, confirmation is accompanied by anointing, which is the application of oil to the confirmand. A particularly beloved practice, especially among Lutherans, is the giving of a “confirmation verse” to each youth being confirmed. This verse is frequently used decades later as the sermon text for their funeral. Confirmation most often occurs in the spring, although the precise dates may vary. One traditional date for confirmations is Palm Sunday (The Sunday before Easter). Other popular dates include Pentecost (7 weeks after Easter), Reformation Day (October 31), and Mother’s Day. Recently, confirmation dates have often coincided more closely with the school year, taking place on a specified Sunday between late April and early June.

There are also several common misconceptions concerning confirmation. For example, it is sometimes understood that youth become members of the church when they are confirmed. This generally is true for an adult who is new to a church, but in most churches children become members at Baptism, although they might not participate in all aspects of congregational life until after confirmation. Another example of this is that confirmation is sometimes looked at like a graduation because it comes at the end of a period of more concentrated instruction. In contrast, it is actually intended as quite the opposite of a graduation. Instead of being an end to a person’s spiritual development, confirmation is intended to open the door to fuller participation in the congregation and a lifetime of continued discipleship and instruction in the faith.

In spite of the previously-mentioned differences in traditions, the common thread regarding confirmation is that a previously baptized person acknowledges their baptism, is given further instruction in the Bible and church teachings, and has an opportunity to publicly confess the faith and pledge their faithfulness to their church.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Easter

2009-04-09T16:05:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Easter:

Q: What is the religious meaning behind the Easter holiday, and how are symbols such as decorated eggs and the Easter Bunny related to the Christian celebration of Easter?

To state it most concisely, Easter is the yearly celebration of the day on which Jesus rose to life the third day after dying by crucifixion. This occurred in Jerusalem, approximately the year 30 A.D. Ancient Christians considered this celebration to be the highest point of their worship for the year, and they viewed every Sunday as a commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection and a smaller version of the Easter celebration. Even today, the Resurrection of Jesus is a pivotal event for Christians, because the truthfulness of the Christian faith rests entirely on its authenticity.

The word “Easter” is actually a term unique to the English language. Because of the events Easter celebrates, the hymnal on my desk calls it, “The Resurrection of our Lord.” Other times it is simply known as “Resurrection Sunday.” Ancient Christians referred to this celebration using the same word which had been used to refer to the Jewish holiday of Passover.

The great majority of Christian churches celebrate the Resurrection in some way. The simplest of these celebrations lasts only one day and may include only special music or a more festive atmosphere for the morning’s service. In other Christian traditions, the celebration encompasses a significant period of time both before and after Easter itself. In the most elaborate of celebrations, churches may observe a season of solemnity and restraint, called Lent, for approximately six weeks before Easter as well as a season of eight weeks of celebration following Resurrection Sunday.

Some Christian churches also commemorate one or more holy days during the week before Easter (called Holy Week). These include Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem riding on a Donkey on “Palm Sunday” (one week before Easter), the establishment of the Lord’s Supper on Thursday, remembering Jesus’ Crucifixion on Friday, and even an evening or all-night vigil of Scripture and prayer on Saturday night.

Commonly recognized Easter symbols in America, such as the Easter Bunny or decorated eggs, are not drawn from the traditional Christian practices surrounding Resurrection Sunday, although some have more recently used the hatching of an egg as a way of describing Jesus’ resurrection to children. It is more likely that these symbols arise out of pre-Christian springtime festivals from Western Europe. However, because these symbols emphasize the coming of new life, they could be seen as complimentary images to the Christian celebration of the Resurrection and especially useful for the instruction of children about Easter’s meaning.

Q: What religious holy days does God require Christians to celebrate?

I cannot say that the New Testament gives any commands concerning holy days which must be celebrated by Christians as a requirement. In fact, Paul says in the book of Romans, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. (Romans 14:5-6a ESV)

Some churches observe only a small number of holy days during the year, such as Christmas and Easter. Other churches have more elaborate calendars which include dozens of holy days. The most common of these follows the major events in the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, from His conception and birth through His resurrection and ascension, and even specifies certain Scripture readings to accompany the commemoration of each event.

In many of the world’s religions, it is thought that observance of certain festivals will bring blessing, good fortune, or the favor of their god/gods. Christian holy days are notably different from this because they do not exist for us to offer something to God in exchange for his blessings. Instead, they exist to help us learn about what Jesus said and did during His earthly life and to remind us of His life, death, and resurrection for us. What matters is not the number or name of the holy days, but rather the person to whom they point and about whom they teach us, namely Jesus.

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

A Theological Analysis and Lutheran Response to William Paul Young’s The Shack

2009-03-01T01:22:00.013-06:00

You can read this document below, or if you prefer, download it as a *.pdf file.

The Shack, a novel by William Paul Young, has been an almost universal topic of conversation in the United States in recent months. As of the writing of this response, it is #1 in paperback fiction on the New York Times Best Seller List as well among the top-selling books on Amazon.com. This book is probably the most popular topic in religion today, among Christians and non-Christians alike. Whether one endorses or opposes the views expressed in The Shack, it is hardly possible to be part of the cultural conversation without knowing and understanding the book.

For the sake of space, I will not retell many details of the book here. If you have read it, you already know them, and if you have not, I don’t want to decrease your enjoyment of the book, if you do read it, by revealing the whole plot. The necessary details are that a man named Mack, whose daughter was murdered, receives a note from “Papa” requesting to meet him at the shack where the murder occurred, and when Mack arrives at the shack, he encounters god as the Author portrays him. The time Mack spends with “god” at the shack takes up 12 of the book’s 18 chapters. The other 6 “frame” this encounter with the background and conclusion to the story.

Difficulties of Theological Fiction

One difficulty of giving a theological response to a piece of fictional literature is that there is a degree of interpretation involved before one can even evaluate the positions of the book and its author. For example, some details of fictional books are not meant to be literal, but are just devices to move the plot along. This does not make these details neutral, because unwise choices on the part of the author can still lead the reader down false paths if they lend themselves easily to misunderstanding. Additionally, since, by its nature, a fictional work is not able to be an exhaustive treatment of a theological question, sometimes the author will be silent on a particular point, so we may have inadequate evidence to determine where the book stands on that question.

Even further, we have to examine whose mouth a statement comes from. This occurs, not just in humanly-authored fiction, but even in Biblical literature. In the book of Job, Job’s friends make statements that are significantly off-base. If we were to take these out of context, we might attribute them as actually being Scriptural truth, but if we look at them in context, we find out that they are really only the opinion of the one speaking the statement, and actually express the opposite of the book’s intended message. We see an example of this in The Shack when Mack is talking to his daughter, Missy, about a Native American legend. She asks, “Is the Great Spirit another name for God—you know, Jesus’ papa?” Mack responds by saying, “I would suppose so. It’s a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is Great.” (p. 31) We can’t justly conclude this type of statement to be the position of the book or its author, because it could easily be just the opinion of the character. On the other hand, when the character making the statement is proposed to be God Himself, there is no other reasonable conclusion than to presume that statement to be the position of the book and the belief of its author. It is this type of statement which will be used as evidence in the sections which follow.

Bright Moments in The Shack

For those not already familiar with it, The Shack’s picture of God begins with Papa (God the Father) as a large, African-American woman. (Many readers have compared her to Aunt Jemima.) Jesus is a Middle-eastern man in His mid-thirties. (Sounds pretty accurate) Sarayu (The Holy Spirit) is portrayed as a small, light-hearted Asian woman. (I imagine the character to resemble a young, Asian Hippie.) In spite of this bizarre picture of God, I had some moments of hope early on that all the criticism might be just Fundamentalism run amok. Many dismiss the book immediately upon reading or hearing about this description, but I was prepared to suspend judgment over the non-traditional physical portrayal of God until after I had read what that god actually said, because the author has stated in interviews that this is not meant to be a literal depiction of God. If what was said was otherwise orthodox, I might have been able to look past the book’s visual description of the persons of the Trinity as a mere metaphor or device of fiction.

Early on, The Shack seemed to be good reading, and I even encountered several seemingly orthodox statements in the early part of Mack’s conversation with Papa [my reaction in brackets]:

“Mackenzie, the Truth shall set you free and the Truth has a name; he’s over in
the wood-shop right now covered in sawdust. Everything is about
him.” (Papa, p. 95)

[Sounds like a great confession of Jesus. Even more, in an age where Christian literature seems to properly belong in the self-help section, how often do we see it said that everything is about Jesus?]

“But instead of scrapping the whole Creation we rolled up our sleeves and
entered into the middle of the mess—that’s what we have done in Jesus.“ (Papa,
p. 99)

[This too sounds like a welcome and all-too-uncommon reference to the Incarnation.]

“We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three
attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God
and I am three persons, and each of the three is completely and entirely the
one.” (Papa, p. 101)

[Most of this sounds like an orthodox, almost Athanasian, definition of the Trinity. The last clause was a little unclear to me, but seemed harmless enough at the time.]

“I am fully God, but I am human to the core. Like I said, it’s Papa’s
miracle.” (Jesus, p. 112)

[Wow! Do I even need to comment?]

“You mean,” Mack interjected sarcastically, “that I can’t just ask, ‘What Would Jesus Do’?” Jesus chuckled, “Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works for you, if that’s the way you choose to go…my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus…’” (p. 149)

[This is probably the highlight of the book for me. What Christian author would have the guts to challenge “WWJD”? That’s not something you see every day.]

“The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus.”
(Papa, p. 197)

[This comes late in the book, but even after having largely seen the book show its hand about God’s identity, this gem still stood out.]

If these statements were the only excerpts one read, and were separated from the remaining material in the book, one might conclude the book to be orthodox, even to a Lutheran. There are also bright spots in the broader themes of The Shack. First, it is about God, which is a far cry from much of what is currently being published under the label of Christian literature. Additionally, the book has a commendable purpose in encouraging people to examine their understanding for misconceptions about God and His nature. Its central theme seems to be to confront the “problem of evil,” that is, it attempts to help people who experience emotional pain understand God’s purpose in their circumstances and to propose a solution concerning how suffering and tragedies can be reconciled with a God who loves humanity and cares about people. Addressing this question is certainly a commendable cause, but does the book remain faithful to Biblical Christianity in its attempts to answer this question?

Overstepping the Boundaries

We cannot deny that people, even Christians, hold to many false understandings of God. One example specifically mentioned by the author of The Shack is a sort of Gandalf-god, where God the Father is a large old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne. Another false impression of God which is rightly challenged by The Shack is the view that God is an angry dictator in heaven uttering commands and waiting to smite people. Unfortunately, the principle of questioning one’s conceptions of God is taken far beyond these in the book, even encouraging the reader to question Biblical descriptions of God in favor of what one can be perceived through one’s own emotion and understanding, independent of any scripture or body of believers.

Likewise, the author goes too far in his attempt at reconciling a loving God with suffering and tragedy by speaking where Scripture has not. St. John warns in the last verses of Revelation about adding to or taking away from the words of Scripture, and the author of The Shack is culpable of both by attempting to explain the unexplainable concerning the Trinity and by taking away such things as the Law, God’s wrath, punishment for sin, and the authority of Scripture. In a work of fiction, one can abide with a small amount of license for the sake of advancing the plot or developing a character, but obvious contradiction of Scripture, especially in an alleged work of Christian literature where three of the four main characters are presented as a revelation of God, is well beyond the limits of this license by any standard.

In the sections which follow, I will first address a few miscellaneous inconsistencies between the worldviews of Scripture and of The Shack, followed by doctrinal difficulties on which all orthodox[1] Christians could agree. The emphasis will then shift to some particularly Lutheran observations about The Shack’s problems.

A Strong Foundation? – Biblical Inconsistencies

There is a recurring pattern in The Shack where Mack confronts one of the God characters with a Scriptural teaching or quotation, only to have the God character respond by dismissing the Biblical teaching as a misunderstanding, as if to say, “That’s not what I really meant.” Not only does this serve to devalue the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God, it also seeks to inspire doubt about important Biblical teachings. The most obvious example of this technique is when Papa and Mack discuss the crucifixion.

Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly. Love
always leaves a significant mark,” [Papa] stated softly and gently. “We
were there together.”
Mack was surprised. “At the cross? Now
wait, I thought you left him—you know—‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?’”…
…”You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he
felt at that moment, I never left him.”

There are huge implications to this difference. Jesus was forsaken by the Father as the condemnation for our sin. If the Father did not actually forsake Jesus at the cross, then our sins have not been paid for and Jesus has not been made our substitute. Additionally, we actually lose an important source of comfort. One of the book’s primary themes is that God does not forsake us, regardless of the circumstances, but the primary Scriptural reason we can say this is because Jesus was actually forsaken. He was forsaken by the Father so that we would not have to be. In addition, if Jesus exclamation about being forsaken at the cross is not factual, how can we know any of His other statements are factual rather than merely His flawed perception of the event?

Additionally, although they are not the type of foundational doctrines addressed in the next section (the definition of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ), the book contradicts clear statements of Scripture on several topics, for example:

Government – Papa says “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will.” On the other hand, Romans 13 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” This statement by Papa also has implications for the Church, Marriage, and Family.

Creation – The Jesus of The Shack says, “From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him.” Genesis reveals that God took a rib (not a woman) from the man and formed it into a woman.

The Law – Sarayu correctly identifies the law, Specifically the Ten Commandments, as the mirror which shows us our sin as opposed to a set of rules which tell us how to please God and earn His favor. Unfortunately, this leads, in the book, to the conclusion that “In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” (p. 203) And further, “because of Jesus, there is now no law.” (p, 224) This is in clear opposition to Jesus teaching, which says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18) The moral law itself is not negated in Christ, only its power to condemn. God does not cease to demand that the moral law be kept. He does not ignore the law’s demands, but instead, He has forgiven the believer’s trespass against it because of Jesus’ Sacrifice. The God of the Bible forgives sins because of Christ. The god of The Shack knows no sins because he knows no law.

Divine Revelation – “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours, Mackenzie.” (Sarayu, p. 195) A few pages later, she goes on to direct Mack to look for God’s revelation in art, music, silence, people, Creation, joy, sorrow, and the Bible [not as the definitive source, but as one among many]. (p. 198) In Romans 1, among other places, the Bible makes a distinction between natural revelation (the ability to discern God’s existence, although not His precise identity or His grace); as distinct from God’s revelation in the Bible, which tells us who He is and reveals to us His grace. The God revealed in nature can only be assumed to be great, mighty, and holy, and we should be rightly afraid. It is only through Scripture that we can know Him in His grace, revealed in Jesus.

Removing the Cornerstone? – Christological Difficulties

The Shack does acknowledge Jesus as both God and man and even as the central focus of everything. Disappointingly, further reading reveals details which undermine these definitions. What the book affirms in principle regarding the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, it eventually denies in fact by its later statements. Early in Mack’s time at the shack, Papa goes into a lengthy description of Jesus and His saving work.

When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human…
Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded. That is why his name is Immanuel, God with us, or God with you, to be more precise…
Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with e very human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost…
He [performed miracles] as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.

From this excerpt, it is evident that the Jesus of The Shack is not actually God in human flesh. Although the author acknowledges this in principle, his further explanation results in a denial of the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation. First, Scripture never teaches that Jesus relied only on the Father’s divine authority, never His own. He lived as a man and “became obedient unto death,” (Philippians 2:8) but when He exercised divine authority, such as in miracles, it was His own. The Biblical Jesus’ humanity never diminishes His divine identity as God the Son. The Jesus of The Shack, although voluntarily, is somehow diminished in his divinity, by reason of his becoming man.

Secondly, while the shack portrays a Jesus whose relationship with Papa is no different than that attainable by any other human, the relationship between God the Father and the Biblical Jesus is dramatically different from that of God with other humans. As God, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus is one with the Father. We are not. Whatever closeness we enjoy with the Father, whether in heaven or on earth, we can never live out the relationship with the Father which Jesus has, because He relates to the father within the Trinity, while we are only able do so from the outside. Third, The Shack states later that Jesus does not exercise Divine Authority, even now, after the resurrection. In Contrast, the Gospels and Acts demonstrates that the resurrected Jesus gives evidence of His divine nature by doing things such as entering locked rooms in His post-resurrection appearances. Because of his divinity, the resurrected Jesus is not limited by time and space as the rest of humanity is.

In addition, the Shack’s view of Christ is flawed in that it misunderstands sin, the cross, and salvation. Papa says, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (p. 120) The third sentence of this statement is certainly true, although only through Jesus. On the other hand, both testaments of Scripture clearly attribute punishment of sin to God. Old Testament examples are plentiful, and in the New Testament, this includes the death of Ananias and Sapphira as well as the visions of Revelation.

Beyond misunderstanding sin, the author seems to have a serious misunderstanding of salvation. In fact, He never mentions it. Attaining a relationship with God is a prominent theme, but that relationship does not seem to include faith in the Christian sense or even Christ as the exclusive means to attain that relationship. The Jesus of The Shack talks about “Buddhists, Mormons, Baptists, and Muslims” who “love him,” While he then acknowledges there are “some roads that lead to nowhere,” He then follows immediately by saying, “I will travel any road to find you.” (p. 182) I find it hard to conclude anything from this paragraph of the book, other than that the author proposes that somehow Jesus saves people even outside of their being Christians. It eerily resembles Brian McLaren’s statement about making Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu, “followers of Christ” who do not become Christians, but remain in their original religion. In fact, in the same discussion about salvation, The Shack’s Jesus even says, “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian.” (of course not. He’s Christ. He can’t follow Himself.) A few pages later, Papa says, “I am now fully reconciled to the world.” Mack replies, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” To which Papa replies, “…Reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part.” The broad conclusion given in the book is that God is actually reconciled to the whole world, which is then experienced in an act of free will by humans to live in relationship with Him. On the other hand, the Christian teaching is that while Jesus died for the whole world, it is only through faith in Him that salvation is actually applied to the individual by God’s grace.

A house built upon the Rock? – Trinitarian Difficulties

The broadest area of difficulty by far in The Shack is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. The author recognizes that the Trinity is a mystery. Through Papa’s words within the book, as well as in his own responses during interviews, Young indicates that he describes the persons of the Trinity in pictures which challenge traditional expectations in order to force people to reexamine their concrete perceptions of God. He acknowledges that these descriptions are not meant to be literal, but have his choices of imagery been wise? In a culture where goddess worship is growing in popularity, does it benefit the reader to have God the Father and the Holy Spirit portrayed as women? Is there another way that the author could have disrupted the reader’s false perceptions of god without leaving an opening for the reader to see his work as an affirmation of goddess worship? Some might argue that God the Father does not have gender-specific anatomy, thus to portray Him as a woman is an acceptable choice, but God never reveals Himself as “Mother.” Similarly, it has been argued that God describes himself in terms such as a mother nursing an infant (Isaiah 66) and Jesus describes Himself like a “hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” (Matt. 23:37) However, these descriptions are of a far different nature than God’s revelation as Father. God is the Father of Jesus. He is the one who created the world and gave us life. He does continue to provide for and protect us. When God describes Himself as Father, He describes His nature and identity. In the examples above from Matthew and Isaiah, God is not describing His identity. Instead He is describing His actions. Additionally, He does so by way of simile, using “like.” He does not say, “I am a mother,” or “I am a hen.” He says, “like a mother,” or “like a hen.” On one hand, we cannot accuse the author of The Shack of promoting goddess worship or promoting a “God the Mother” theology, since he has acknowledged in interviews that this is not a literal depiction. On the other hand, it seems that if God has given us a certain revelation, we ought to honor that revelation and not depict him in a way which is entirely opposite, even for the sake of catching the reader’s attention or challenging their preconceived ideas.

Earlier Papa’s description of the Trinity was cited, which said, “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is completely and entirely the one.” (Papa, p. 101) At the point in the book where this sentence occurs, the words, “…and each of the three is completely and entirely the one,” seemed unclear, and perhaps awkward, but as the book progresses, the meaning behind them becomes clearer. As Mack interacts with the characters, we realize that all three persons bear the Stigmata from the crucifixion. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the Father or the Spirit were crucified or died. In fact, this teaching, called Patripassionism, is a form of Modalism and was expressly condemned by the ancient church as early as the third century A.D. In addition, The Bible speaks of the Father raising Jesus from the dead (Galatians 1:1 and Romans 6:4, among others). If the Father were also crucified, then how did He raise Jesus from the dead? It is proper to say that “God died on the cross,” because Jesus is fully God, but it is not appropriate to take this so far as to assert that the Father or the Spirit died on the cross. This is an example of the danger of attempting to offer answers which are beyond the scope of Biblical revelation. Because Young seeks to say more about the Trinity than God has revealed in Scripture, the god of The Shack is ultimately not the Holy Trinity.

Young’s error regarding the Trinity is not limited to the distinctiveness of the three persons, but even extends to reveal Papa in multiple forms—first as the African-American woman already mentioned, but later in the book, as an older long-haired man in hiking gear. Papa tells Mack,

“If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning…To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religious stereotypes.” (Papa, p. 93)

Papa goes on to explain that (s)he appears as (s)he does because Mack had a poor relationship with his father and so an image of an African-American woman is easier for Mack to relate to than one similar to an earthly father. The god of The Shack does not eternally exist as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is a god which temporarily manifests itself in whatever way is most effective at the time. For Young, Scripture’s revelations of God appear to be only revelations for that time, and God may choose other revelations at other times.

In addition, The Shack repeatedly asserts that the Trinity—all three persons—became human. Papa says, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.” (p. 99) and “He [Jesus] is the very center of our purpose and in him we are now fully human.” (p. 192) In contrast, the Bible unmistakably teaches that only God the Son became man. The Trinity does not become human, nor do the Father or the Spirit, but only Jesus.

Another area of discrepancy between the book’s Trinity and Scripture’s is in their relation to one another. The Shack presents the Trinity as “a circle of relationship” (Sarayu, p. 122) and a relationship where all three members of the Trinity are mutually submitted to one another. (Jesus, p. 145) To the contrary, Scripture talks about Jesus submitting to the will of the Father (John 6:38, John 8:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, etc.), but never speaks of the Father submitting to Jesus. Likewise, Scripture never speaks of the Father or Son submitting to the Spirit. Biblical teaching indicates that the Spirit always points us back to the person and teachings of Jesus and is sent to believers by the Father and the Son. (John 14-16)

Young extends this idea of submission to the point where it is said that God actually submits to humans in the same way that he proposes the persons of the Trinity submit to one another (Jesus, p. 145) and that even parents and children and all other relationships in society should be lived in an identical state of submission. Certainly we are to submit to God, but, even though God does serve us in Jesus, He is never spoken of as submitting to us. Both testaments of the Bible speak of children obeying their parents and servants obeying their masters, but never the reverse. There are Biblical instructions that parents not provoke their children and that masters treat their servants well, but hierarchy remains intact and the distinctions are not abolished. The god characters in the book even go so far as to insist that responsibility is not a Biblical concept (p. 203ff), while the Bible frequently speaks of the responsibilities of parents, rulers, masters, servants, children, and many others. The Shack views hierarchy as foreign to God and a result of sin. Scripture presents hierarchy as a God-ordained structure which is to be respected.

A Mighty Fortress? – Lutheran Responses

The previous sections have already covered difficulties with The Shack which Christians can broadly agree exist. These include: the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, natural and revealed knowledge of God, sin, salvation, the Law, and earthly authority. In addition to these, there are numerous other ideas expressed in the book, which although they would not be universally problematic for Christians, are of special concern for Lutherans.

Knowledge of God—This teaching is foundational for several of the others. The difference between natural and revealed knowledge of God was discussed above, as well as the book’s failure to properly distinguish between them. Additionally, the book seems to denigrate any concrete knowledge of God. The previously mentioned cases where the god characters contradict Mack when he confronts them with Scriptural teachings are one example of this. In addition, Young seeks to use the events of the book to knock down not only the reader’s false conceptions about God, but all understandings of God which exist in the mind of the reader. The god of The Shack seems to be completely unknowable, and it seems that, according to the god characters in The Shack, all claims to knowledge about God, even Biblical ones, are inaccurate. The book ultimately proposes that knowledge of God is irrelevant, but that what matters is relationship with him (her, it?). It seems to suggest that God must be experienced rather than known, but how can one have a relationship with or an experience of someone or something which he does not know? An knowledge of God’s character and identity must be possessed before relationship can exist. Lutheran theology, in agreement with the majority of Christianity, teaches that God is, in fact, knowable as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. While we do not have license to propose to know more than revealed there, we can be certain of those things which have been revealed. Rather than seeking God through Jesus and through Scripture, The Shack encourages readers to seek God nearly everywhere, such as through their own contemplation and introspection as well as natural revelation, other people, and the arts.

Means of Grace—Many Lutherans would also object to the methods which God uses to reveal Himself in The Shack. Specifically, by leaving a note in Mack’s mailbox and by taking on visible form to speak directly to him. If the author is proposing that direct revelation of God exists apart from the Word and the Sacraments, then they are right to object to this as Lutherans. Lutheran theology teaches that humans are not to seek God in any other way than the Bible, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, because He has never promised to reveal Himself in any other way. While I agree with this objection, I am not convinced that the author is proposing that individuals seek experiences like that described at the shack. From a literary standpoint, I would conclude that the direct revelation experienced by Mack is not intended to be normative for humans, but is, instead, a fictional tool to provide opportunity for God to interact with Mack. On the other hand, as discussed in the previous section, Lutherans can rightly object to the numerous additional sources of revelation proposed in the book, such as the arts, silence, and emotions as contrary to the doctrine of the Means of Grace. The Shack also seems to imply that the revelation of God to the world can evolve over time, such as the frequent instances where the god characters re-explain clear Biblical teachings. Lutheran theology holds that all statements about God are to be tested against Scripture, and that no new proposition can add to or alter what Scripture has already taught.

Sin—The faulty understanding of Sin evident in the book has already been explained, and this has further implications in light of Lutheran theology. If sin is to be understood in the way it is in The Shack, then humans would not actually be sinful creatures. There is no indication given in the book that people are separated by God by anything but their own ignorance. Furthermore, the ability assumed by the book for humans to understand God apart from Scripture and seek Him by their own free will would necessitate that they are neither sinful nor naturally separated from Him. Additionally, if God does not punish sin and has no expectations of humans in a legal sense, there would be no need for a savior, a cross, or even the incarnation of Jesus. Lutheran theology holds that the central doctrine of the Christian faith is Justification—particularly, that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone. Because sin does not separate us from God or condemn us to His punishment in The Shack, Jesus does not become our substitute on the cross to suffer God’s wrath. In fact, the Jesus of The Shack does not suffer God’s wrath at all. If there is no punishment for sin, and Jesus does not suffer God’s wrath, then the only purpose of the cross is to be a demonstration of God’s love or an example of submission and humility for us. The Shack talks a lot about “grace,” but it is a meaningless grace, because its god knows no wrath or punishment, nor does he actually redeem anyone.

Law and Gospel—Lutherans teach that there are two doctrines in Scripture: Law and Gospel. The Law tells us what God expects us to do, and ultimately reveals our failure to live up to its requirements. The Gospel reveals what God has done for us in Christ and is the solution to our failure to live up to the Law’s demands. The Shack undermines both of these. As explained in an earlier section, the god characters in the book explain the law not as fulfilled by Jesus, but as abolished by Him. The god of The Shack has no law by which His creatures are expected to live. As a result, any talk of grace in The Shack is not truly Gospel, because in the view of the book, there is apparently nothing to be forgiven and thus no need for grace. Gospel and grace in The Shack are not that God has forgiven our sins because of Jesus, but, instead, that He has repealed the law and instead seeks to live in us so that we respond in love to every situation. (p. 204-205)

The Church/Ministry—Throughout The Shack, all earthly “institutions,” including the Church are looked down upon. For The Shack, God does not seem to have a use for The Church or pastors in revealing Himself to humans. In contrast, Cyprian of Carthage summarized the Bible’s teaching by saying in the 3rd century, “He cannot have God as his Father who has not the Church as his mother,” and “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Hebrews 10 admonishes “Let us not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing.” In harmony with this, Lutherans have always taught that Christians are intended by God to meet together regularly with other fellow believers in Christ to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments. In light of The Shack’s view of organized churches, it follows that it would also have no use for an ordained ministry or other professional clergy. In contrast, Jesus called 12 disciples and sent them out to be the first pastors. In keeping with this, Lutherans believe that the office of pastor is instituted by Christ Himself and the Church is instructed to call pastors who will publicly preach the Word and administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the Church. It seems that, in The Shack, God is to be sought nearly everywhere, with the exception of the places where He has specifically promised that we will find Him—namely, the Bible, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

Vocation—The Shack frowns on all forms of hierarchy in the world and views them as a result of sin. It also sees all relationships as intended by God to be built upon mutual submission. Lutheran theology, on the other hand, sees a Doctrine of Vocation in the Bible. The various positions that we each hold, such as ruler, parent, child, employee, manager, pastor, teacher, or student, are actually blessed and instituted by God for our good. These distinctions do not arise out of our sinful desire to dominate each other (although they are sometimes misused for that purpose). Instead, they are given by God as a means by which He provides for our instruction and protection.

A Shack built upon the Sand

While I am not normally a reader of fiction, I did find reading The Shack to be an interesting and enjoyable experience. There were even a few moments of the book which I found amusing, such as the criticism of WWJD (mentioned above), the awkward scenario of saying grace at a meal god is your host and dining companion, and the very subtle communion reference during the characters’ final meal together (p. 236). While The Shack might be an enjoyable read and have admirable motives, and it is certainly a thought-provoking piece of literature, it ultimately falls short of contributing anything to the understanding of God. On the Lutheran talk radio show Issues Etc. it was recently said that “The Shack is a book about God that gets God wrong.” This is a description that I can wholeheartedly agree with, and one which points us to precisely the reason why the book fails. To attempt to explain how to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the facts suffering and tragedy in the world is not a successful endeavor if the author misrepresents the identity of God in the process. Likewise, an attempt to correct people’s false understandings about God does not achieve its goal if it undermines all concrete knowledge about God in the process.

A book that seeks to answer deep questions about God, but gets God wrong, is like a bicycle wheel without a hub. Even with all its spokes, it will not take the bike anywhere, and will just end up harming someone with a lot of sharp edges as it spins. The Shack is Trinitarian enough to turn off a non-Christian, but it falls so far short of orthodox that it cannot offer any real insight to an orthodox Christian. Ultimately, a mature Christian already has an understanding of the themes the book addresses. On the other hand, a new or weak Christian who needs to understand some of the ideas the book wants to express would suffer more harm than good from reading it because of the abundant false teaching saturating the book.

Many who are reading over reviews of this book are really looking for the answer to one question: Should I read this book? (or should I have read it?) For the mature Christian who is strongly rooted in the Bible’s teachings, reading this book will not do any harm, providing it is read with the careful understanding that it is not a true and accurate portrayal of God. In fact, since so many people are reading it already, it is beneficial for mature Christians to be knowledgeable enough about its contents that they can help guide others around its pitfalls. On the other hand, for children, most teenagers, new Christians, or those who do not have a precise understanding of the Bible’s teachings, this book should most certainly not be on their reading list. It will only serve to obscure God’s identity for them rather than reveal it, and has the potential to do great spiritual harm if its understanding of God is believed.

Young has expressed that The Shack was never intended for mass-distribution, but was originally a private attempt to communicate to his children the understanding of God in which he had found comfort. In the final analysis, though, I think the author is reacting to a perceived theological imbalance which was evident during his childhood and early adult years. The present church, however, actually seems to suffer from the opposite imbalance. While the church of 35-40 years ago may have been too heavy on God’s greatness, holiness, and wrath, and painted a white male picture of a Gandalf-god, the church today is reluctant to paint any picture of God or may even allow every person to paint their own picture (such as Young’s “Trinity”). Today’s church has largely ignored God’s greatness, holiness, and wrath, and God’s grace is too often understood as permissiveness instead of forgiveness. Young said in an interview that he believes our picture of God is often worse than our fears, but he would rather paint God as better than we can imagine. Both options fail to benefit anyone if they are unscriptural. While Young seems to see himself as unique, cutting-edge, and counter-cultural in portraying God the way he does, in my judgment, he has actually conformed precisely to the pattern of today’s world where all religions are seen as equal and every individual has their own sovereign experience and definition of god which is not subject to comparison against Scripture or any other authority.

Friday of Lent 1, 2009
Rev. Jason P. Peterson
St. John’s Lutheran Church
Burt, IA

[1] By “orthodox,” I mean all Christians who hold the definitions of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ expressed in the three Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles’ Nicene, Athanasian) as well as the Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture.

Missouri's Golden Age

2009-02-13T23:24:00.003-06:00

Regarding the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, a synodical leader said several years ago that, "This is not your grandfather's Synod." Since then, countless pastors and laypersons have responded by saying, "We want our grandfather's synod back," but I wonder, has our grandfather's synod become a sort of idol for us?

Do I think that some of the recent changes in many of our synod's congregations regarding worship style and pastoral practice have been the best choices? No. I don't. But, do I want my grandfather's synod back either? Certainly not!

Too often, we act like there is a Golden age of the Missouri Synod to which we need to return. We act as if we could just return to the way it was in Walther's time, everything would be better, or that the synod was perfect the day TLH was published in 1941, and has been going downhill ever since. I believe one of my seminary professors said it best when he told us in no uncertain terms, "There is no golden age!"

My grandfather's synod was plagued by all manner of pietism, by Romaphobia, and by a widespread disregard for the liturgy and sacraments. A few examples:

The synod of Walther's era believed it was sinful to purchase life insurance because it showed a lack of trust in God to provide.
Weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper has never been the norm for the Missouri Synod, and at certain times and places was as little as monthly or quarterly. Even the Baptists who believe it is no more than mere bread and wine receive the Supper monthly. How should we not receive it much more often than that?
As late as the 1960's, pastors who were divorced by no fault of their own, but because of adultery or desertion on the part of their wives, were either forced out of the ministry or relegated to desk jobs at synodical institutions.
Well into the mid-20th century, men were required to enter and graduate seminary single, but faced a cultural expectation to be married when they entered the parish.
Throughout Missouri's history, large numbers have rejected as "Romish" or "Catholic," many liturgical practices retained by the Reformers, such as chanting, vestments, the crucifix, the sign of the cross, and many others. The rejection of these practices has impaired the ability to pass down the faith to later generations.
Uniformity in practice was all too often enforced by means of the law, rather than encouraged for the sake of the Gospel, even in areas of adiaphora.

These are just the things that came to the top of my head in the course of 5 minutes. If I took the time to pull out my church history notes or especially to read copies of synod publications from Missouri's first century, the list could probably grow to dissertation-sized proportions. All the while, Missouri retained the right doctrine, but persistently contradicted it by her practice.

While I don't think we are any better off today, I know we were certainly not any better off then. It has been noted by many observers that each generation of humans believe things are worse in their generation than they have ever been before. It is also noted that they are generally wrong. The sky is not falling, nor is Missouri's house. Each generation of Christians and Lutherans has corrected some of the errors of its fathers and grandfathers, while also generating plenty of their own along the way. Longing for the repristination of our flawed past will do nothing to help us today. It will only distract us from the Church's mission of reaching sinners to deliver through Word and Sacrament the forgiveness won for them by our Lord. If we are going to look foolish to the world, let it be because of the cross, and not because of the bizarre Missouri synod culture which our past has forced upon us with all of its disputes and other oddities. Rather than looking with longing eyes to the past, we would be better off to look after our own house today and use the wisdom God gave us to chart a course for the future.

Evangelically Fixated vs. Theologically Preoccupied

2009-02-06T00:17:00.008-06:00

In his column for the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of Outreach Magazine, Ed Stetzer observed two errant tendencies in the church. He described the first as "Theologically Preoccupied," and the other as "Evangelically Fixated." He noted how each particular post on his blog draws critical responses from one side or the other.

It seems that these two tendencies are both alive and well within my church body, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, as well. This is not to say that the majority of our pastors could be placed in either camp, but sometimes it can feel otherwise, when those at either extreme happen to be some of our most prolific at distributing their opinions. While I realize the majority of our pastors and congregations are doing their best to maintain this equilibrium, we have to admit that there are some who are guilty either of compromising elements of our theology for the sake of growing their church or have become so preoccupied with theological introspection that they never engage or interact with unbelievers, much less participate in evangelism.

I do not intend to say that theological precision is a fault or undesirable--quite the opposite. It is absolutely necessary, but when theological precision is sought to the neglect of evangelistic fervor, it is misplaced. Likewise, Evangelism is not an unnecessary task, and I do not intend to criticize those who have a passion for it. But, when evangelism is pursued at the expense or neglect of theological precision, this is also objectionable.

A Christian should be neither "Evangelically Fixated" nor "Theologically preoccupied." Instead, the church should always find itself Evangelistically Theological and Theologically Evangelistic. These two extremes provide a suitable test for the rest of us. If you find yourself criticized by one of these extremes or the other, perhaps it is time to take a moment to examine your equilibrium. If you find yourself alternately criticized by both extremes, you have probably achieved the appropriate symmetry.

Sacrificing pure doctrine?

2009-01-30T19:54:00.003-06:00

In another forum, I recently saw it said regarding changes made in congregations by the pastor, "sometimes we have to sacrifice our pure doctine (in letter) to embrace and live it [in] spirit."

Now, I have known guys entering their first call to the parish, who have made the mistake of hastily moving liturgical furniture or forcing changes on a congregation with negative results for the church as a whole. I myself did ask my congregation to modify a celebrant's chair when I arrived, but it was because I couldn't fit my 330 lb. frame between its arms, so I don't think that is part of this category, and nobody seemed to be offended.

However, it doesn't seem to me that a pastor should avoid guiding his congregation toward change. It seems it would be inadvisable to ever "sacrifice" pure doctrine, especially in light of the many admonitions in the pastoral epistles against doing so. It seems a dangerous framework to place pure doctrine and life in the Spirit in opposition to one another. However, there is certainly something to be said for wisdom and patience when promoting change.

Live where the people live. Get to know them, their church, their culture. Understand why they have the practice they currently have. Learn the history. Go to people's homes. Meet them for coffee. Ask them questions. Show them respect. Spend time brushing up on the topics that they care deeply about. Inspire them. Show them they can trust you as a man and as a pastor. Teach them the Word. Know the difference between a practice which detracts from Jesus versus one that is just eccentric. Talk to them about what you see, "not lording it over them," but as a fellow Christian. Then, the desired changes will come by consensus rather than conflict.

It's not a sacrifice of doctrine, but a sacrifice of the arrogance and selfish pride that expects people to change just because the pastor said so, even though they haven't a clue about why he objects. If we neglect to lead our people toward purer understanding and a practice which clearly reflects pure doctrine, we have failed to do our full duty as pastors. On the other hand, if we recklessly drive them like cattle rather than carefully shepherding them, we will learn that sheep too can stampede!

"Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) It's not spirit or doctrine, it's spirit and doctrine; not mission versus purity, but a mission which prolaims purely and a purity which inspires mission. Our task as pastors is not to tilt the scales toward one or the other, but to lead and be an example to our people in fully embracing both.

Lutheran Study Bible

2009-01-17T01:06:00.000-06:00

The first sneak pre-preview is out! Lutherans will finally have a study bible with LUTHERAN notes instead of warmed-over Zondervan! Praise the Lord!

Sneak Pre-Preview of The Lutheran Study Bible

Lutheran Reformission

2009-01-16T03:04:00.000-06:00

What, then, is a Lutheran Reformission? Why would a Lutheran want to adopt this term?

First, Lutherans are the originators and true heirs of the Reformation. I had been searching and contemplating for over 2 years on a new blog title, and early in 2008 this word, "Reformission," came on to my radar. From the first time I heard it, I knew it was the perfect term for what I had envisioned. Add to that my new task of being chairman of Iowa District West's Personal Missions Committee, and it becomes even more appropriate to use this title.

Even though there have been notable lapses, Lutherans, especially of the Missouri Synod variety, have long been known for doctrinal faithfulness. We have also done a fairly commendable job at sending professional missionaries for the task of foreign missions, as evidenced by the fact that there are now significantly more Lutherans today in Africa than in North America. However, whether deserved or not, we have had a notoriously poor reputation for the task of personal missions--that is, engaging in evangelism ourselves among our friends, family, and neighbors. (Future posts will address this idea in greater detail.)

In today's Missouri Synod, there has sometimes been the perception that doctrinal faithfulness and an enthusiasm for mission are conflicting priorities. Although this dichotomy is not officially enshrined in Lutheran doctrine or Missouri Synod positions, it has been a practical reality more often than we would like to admit. We have too often been under the impression that we must choose between ignoring (if not outright compromising) doctrine for the sake of missional effectiveness or turning our focus inward to purify doctrine at the expense of engaging in mission.

A "Lutheran Reformission" is appropriate because it embraces both doctrinal faithfulness and a passion for missions, resulting in missional doctrine and doctrinal mission.

Even though the term itself has roots outside our denominational fellowship, the concept is applicable regardless of the specifics of confession. Doctrine and Mission work together in the life of the Church.

Reformission History

2009-01-15T02:38:00.000-06:00

What is the origin of this word, "Reformission"? Where did it come from?

You will not find it defined in any dictionary. The word is a conflation of "Reformation" and "Mission." It is inteded to refer to both the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century as well as the continual reform (that is repentance from our errors) of the present-day Church, and to connect these with the task of a Mission which is local and personal. The earliest usage of the word that I have been able to find in my research has been by Mark Driscoll in his books Radical Reformission" (2004) and Confessions of a Reformission Rev. (2006).

Because of his early involvement with figures such as Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren, and because of his church, Mars Hill, holds a similar method of cultural engagement, some have considered Driscoll part of the "Emerging Church" movement. If one were to consider him part of this movement, however, it must be understood that the "Emerging Church" is not a well-defined movement, but a term broadly used to cover a variety of expressions. Some, using the term "Emergent" have tended toward a modern repackaging classic liberal Christianity. Others, who Driscoll refers to as "Emerging Reformers," have combined a strong doctrinal emphasis (most often Calvinist) with an aptitude for cultural engagement. It is this second expression of the "Emerging" movement which has tended to embrace the term "Reformission".

In Radical Reformission, Driscoll defines "Reformission" as "a radical call to reform the church's traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church." He goes on to explain reformission in terms of faithfulness to the Gospel, commitment to the Church, and engagement of the Culture.

In light of this history, I would define "Reformission" as an expression of Christianity which is doctrinally faithful, fervently missional, and culturally aware.

Who takes the first step in salvation?

2007-11-01T17:46:00.001-05:00

The question has been raised in several venues recently whether when a person comes to church, if they are taking the first step in coming to God. Similarly, it has been asked that if God is taking the first step, then is He not working outside of the Means of Grace? Since Lutherans teach that God has only promised to work salvation through the Means of Grace, and by grace alone, the interplay of answers to these two questions becomes complex.

1. Does God work apart from the Word and Sacrament? Certainly He does, but only according to His Law! According to His grace, He has only promised to work through Word and Sacrament, but according to His Law, he is at work in all things. This is why they're called the "Means of Grace." God has only given specific promises regarding how he will work according to grace, not according to Law. Look at the Old Testament. God is given the credit for numerous events in the history of Israel and the world without doing so through Word and Sacrament, but He is not doing any of it according to His grace. It is much like natural and special revelation. Can we see that there is a god through nature and that he is powerful? Yes, but we cannot know anything about His identity or His grace apart from the Scriptures. Similarly, God is certainly present everywhere and in control over all things, but only present to work according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments.

2. In addition to being driven by Law to a church through tragic events or through realizing his sinfulness, a person would not know to go to the church unless he had heard some word of Gospel, no matter how simple, or else why would He look to the church? Certainly this is not saving faith, for that cannot be unless the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross is articulated, but certainly whatever promise or hope the man heard from his neighbor, even if only a vague summary, such as that the Church has the answers to his problems or the fulfillment of his needs, is drawing Him to the Church to hear the preaching of Christ. If he will be saved, He must then hear of the forgiveness of sins through the Word of the Gospel and receive that Word made visible in Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

In all things, God gets credit for salvation. He works according to His Law to drive men away from security in their sin and toward Himself, and He works according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments to forgive sins and give eternal life and salvation.

Is God the author of evil?

2007-07-23T16:27:00.001-05:00

A rough translation of Isaiah 45:7 could be that "[God] forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates evil." For one who was seeking to ask whether God is responsible for moral evil in the world, such a translation could result in a resounding "yes." Those with less pure motives might even use such a verse to accuse the God of the scriptures of being imperfect, evil, or false. Before we let such a conclusion stand, let us examine the verse more closely.

"Evil" meaning moral evil, sin, etc. is actually a very rare definition of the Hebrew word "ra." (ranging between definition 3rd and 10th in various lexicons) I would disagree with libronix and other parsing tools identification of the word in this verse as a substantive adjective, and rather classify it as a masculine noun. (The forms for adjective and masculine noun are identical for this word.) The primary meaning of "ra" when used as a noun is "evil, disstress, adversity." When one asks philosophical questions such as, "is God the author of evil?" it refers to moral evil. Evil in the primary use of "ra" as well as in this verse refers to evil circumstances, such as come upon one in a natural disaster or the aftermath of a military defeat. As a result, I would translate the verse as, "who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates distress. I am the Lord, who does all these." Several translations render "ra" in this verse as "calamity" also, which is in keeping with this definition of the word.

This is a poetic section of Isaiah, so examination of the parallelism of the text is important as to its meaning. Each of the first two lines of the verse consists of a pair of opposites, and the two pairs are compared to one another through a synonymous parallelism. Therefore, Just as God "forms light and creates darkness" so also He "makes peace and creates distress." This assertion that each pair of opposites is a synonym for the other is further strengthened by the fact that the second verb in each pair is identical.

Furthermore, within its pair of opposites, "ra" is not compared with "tov" (good), but instead with "shalom" (peace). If God was said to make good and create evil, interpretation of "ra" as moral evil would be justified, but just as light and dark are opposites, so must be "shalom" and "ra." Therefore, evil in this verse must be the oppoiste of peace rather than of good, thus the translation of "distress" (or adversity, calamity.)

Looking at the context of this verse, we see it is Isaiah's prophesy concerning Cyrus (who did not know God [v. 4-5]) who will allow the captive Jews to return to their land. God is about to give "peace" by returning His people to the land, just as He also brought the "evil" of their downfall and captivity to Babylon. The Old Testament speaks frequently about God fighting against His own people when they have been unfaithful. So, here, he is about to use an unbelieving pagan ruler to return the people to the land, just as he used an unbelieving pagan ruler to exile them in the first place. Even the actions of pagans and evil men serve to accomplish God's will.

Several commentaries also propose that this shows God to be greater than the Persian gods. The Persian religious system was dualistic. There were separate good and evil gods. One created light and was responsible for all good; the other created darkness and was responsible for all evil. This serves to show Cyrus and those who witness the events of scripture that unlike the dualistic Persian god, YHWH is in control of all things with no rival, making Him far greater.

Why would God work "evil" or distress, calamity, and adversity? God's will comes down to one thing. Salvation. (See Luther's Catechisms) God uses peace and adversity as He wills to achieve the final outcome of salvation. This is done both individually and corporately. He preserved the remnant of Israel in the Old Testament to provide for the incarnation of Christ to make atonement, and He individually uses all elements at His disposal to attain the goal of the salvation of individuals as their circumstances drive them to give thanks to God for blessing (peace) or drive them to despair of their own works and rely on God to save them (distress, adversity). This theme of scripture can be seen in this chapter of Isaiah as in v. 6, Isaiah lays out the purpose of God's activity, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me." After a poetic section on God's power and majesty, chapter 45 finally ends with a declaration of God as the only savior, in whom alone is righteousness and strength, to whom all will one day bow and the admonition to turn to Him. (v. 21-25).

Kretzman's commentary summarizes this verse by saying, "Both good fortune and misfortune are sent by [God]."

All of God's works, whether they appear good or evil in the sight of man, serve His one purpose, which is salvation. This is the point of thse verses. God is working through all events of history to bring people to "be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

(I expand on this idea that God uses tragedy to accomplish His will in a previous post at http://lutheranreformission.blogspot.com/2006/03/thy-will-be-done-role-of-tragic-events.html)