“Jesus Calling?”

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews on May 27th, 2010 | 2 comments

Is “Jesus Calling?”

Recently I was given a copy of Jesus Calling, a devotional by Sarah Young. When I first received it, I began thumbing through it, and something in it struck me as quite odd from the very beginning:

It’s written from Jesus’ point of view, the first person singular.

To give you an example of this, here’s part of the entry for January 1:

“Come to Me with a teachable sirit, eager to be changed. A close walk with Me is a life of continual newness. Don not cling to old ways as you step into a new year. Instead, seek My Favce with an open mind, knowing that your journey with Me involves being transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

That phrase “Come to Me” is supposed to be Jesus talking to me. I have a big problem with this. While Sarah Young says in the intro that she knows that her writing is not on the same level as inspired Scripture, what does she mean to do by writing a book called “Jesus Calling” in first person singular, and saying in the intro that it was “God speaking to her”?

Mrs. Young states on pages x-xi of the introduction:

“During that same year (1992), I began reading God Calling, a devotional book written by two anonymous ‘listeners.’ These women practiced waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and paper in hand, recording the messages they received from Him. The messages are written in first person, with ‘I’ designating God….. The following year, I began to wonder if I, too, could receive messages during my times of communing with God. I had been writing in prayer journals for years, but that was one-way communication: I did all the talking. I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more. Increasingly, I wanted to hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day. I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying. I felt awkward the first time I tried this, but I received a message. It was short, biblical, and appropriate. It addressed topics that were current in my life: trust, fear, and closeness to God. I responded by writing in my prayer journal. My journaling had changed from monologue to dialogue. Soon, messages began to flow more freely, and I bought a special notebook to record these words. This new way of communicating with God became the high point of my day. I knew these writings were not inspired as Scripture is, but they were helping me grow closer to God.”

First, Mrs. Young says she knew that God communicated with her through the Bible, yet she “yearned for more.” Isn’t God’s inspired Holy Scripture enough? God has revealed Himself to Us through His Son Jesus Christ who came in the flesh, through the Holy Spirit who indwells believers, through His inspired, written word, yet it’s not enough? If God came in the flesh and spoke, and if we believe that Jesus is God’s FINAL revealing Word, then WHY do we need 365 days of additional instruction written from God’s point of view? We don’t!

The Bible says:

“John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

We can have abundant life in His name, yet it’s not enough?

Second, Mrs. Young stats that she wanted to “hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day.”

The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:20-21: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Now I realize that God reveals His word to us. It’s called illumination. James tells us to ask for wisdom from God so that we can understand. Yet how is it that Sarah Young can now write 365 days of devotional material from Jesus’ perspective, state that it’s a “new way of communicating with God”, and have people treat it as just some regular devotional material?

It’s either God’s Word, or it’s not. And if it IS God’s Word, and she is writing it from Jesus’ perspective, then it’s being presented in an authoritative way. That’s probably what bothers me the most about this. I’ve read lots of other devotional material, but never have I read anything that someone says is a message from God, and it be in the FIRST PERSON, as if Jesus is directly speaking. IF Jesus is truly speaking in her writing (and I do not believe He is), then wouldn’t I take His word as revealed to Sarah as seriously as I would Scripture? Do you see the problem? How is a young Christian supposed to read such things in her book and NOT believe that it’s Scripture?

Friends, the words in Sarah’s book are not Jesus’ words, but the way it’s written, it is portrayed as if Jesus is speaking. I tremble at the thought of writing 365 days of anything and claiming in comes directly from Jesus, from His point of view. That’s exactly what she claims when she says: “I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying. I felt awkward the first time I tried this, but I received a message.”

And what about the accuracy of these messages written as if from Jesus himself to us? Take for example, the June 22nd entry, which begins with:

“Thank Me for the very things that are troubling you. You are on the brink of rebellion, precariously close to shanking your fist in My Face.” How does Sarah Young know this? Another question: How is it that ALL Christians who read this particular entry on June 22nd are on the “brink of rebellion”?

The May 9th entry also says “Because you are human, you will continue to make mistakes. Thinking that you should live error-free is symptomatic of pride.” Where do we find Jesus saying THAT in Scripture?

Or again on February 19th: “You are feeling weighed down by a plethora of problems both big and small.” But what if I’m not? What if I am joyous? Does that mean that I am in the wrong on February 19th?

Are you beginning to see the problems with Sarah Young’s devotional? By writing it from Jesus’ point of view, the presumtion is overwhelming. And it gets worse. Sarah is writing another version of this book… for children!

Yet Scripture teaches us: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I do not need a word from Jesus from a secondary source when Scripture itself is sufficient. Mrs. Young herself even states that God speaks to us through His Word. GOD’s word is inspired, not Sarah’s. And it is God’s word that is sufficient to train me in righteousness, and according to God’s word, His training that comes through His Word will make me adequate, equipped for every good work.

Review: Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”, Pt. 2 “UN-Faith”

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews, Brian McLaren, Heresy on Apr 24th, 2010 | 0 comments

Brian McLaren’s new book “A New Kind of Christianity” (abbreviated as ANKoC from now on) starts with Ch. 1: “Between something Real and Something Wrong”. As I read through Brian’s first chapter, I was rather surprised that someone who is touted as an author and free-thinker would be so wrong in just a few short pages.

I will readily admit that some of the statistics Brian quotes are sobering. But the conclusions he draws from these statistics display where the real error occurs. For instance, McLaren draws from Jim Peterson’s “Evangelism as a Lifstyle” – Navpress 1985, in which Brian says that the church was losing touch with “normal people” and “It’s preachers had forgotten how to speak their language.” While their may be problems in evangelical Christianity, certainly the preachers are not called to speak the language of “normal people” but instead they’re called to speak the language of God, spreading the good news of the Gospel to a dying world, where the “normal people” are lost in sin without Christ.

As a pastor, I know my calling is to preach God’s word. It’s to proclaim His truth in love. Yet to Brian, the answers that he’s coming up with stray from that calling. For instance, McLaren states on p. 6 of ANKoC that when people came up to him with questions after listening to him preach for six months, that:

“I would give them my best answers, but often after they left, I felt hollow. If they “bought” my answers I was strangely disappointed. If they pushed back and told me my answers still made no sense to them, I thought, “Good for you, because some of them don’t really make that much snse to me either.” (ANKoC p. 6)

I am immediately reminded of Paul taking young Timothy under his wing. In 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

“You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2) The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

First, Timothy was to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. He was not to waver. He was remain true to his teaching, which had come from Paul and was certainly confirmed within Timothy by the Holy Spirit. Second, Timothy was told to “entrust” the teachings he’d received from Paul to faithful men. In other words, Timothy was to take others and teach them as he had been taught by Paul, and since this was to be through the strength that comes from the grace that is in Christ Jesus, it would have to be the case that the Holy Spirit would confirm within Timothy that what Paul taught him lined up with Scripture.

This is not the case with Brian McLaren. Do you hear from the quote above on p. 6 that Brian himself doesn’t really put a lot of faith in the historic, orthodox teachings of the church? No wonder he went to other places to search for truth! Not only was he floundering over the truth, but McLaren later goes on to say on the same page that after a while their questions became his questions. His new-found faith was based on doubt!

Now don’t get me wrong, we SHOULD examine ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith:

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

And again:

Acts 17:10-11 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

And therein lies the problem. Brian makes the case over the course of his book that we’ve gotten it all wrong. He makes a big strawman argument (which I will point out soon in another chapter review), and mischaracterizes true Christianity. Why? Because He doesn’t believe it to be true. He modifies the truth to fit his liking.

When Brian talks about his “disillusionment” with the Christian community during the 80′s and 90′s, he makes this argument:

“They wanted to protect unborn human life inside the womb, but didn’t seem to care about born human life in slums or prisons or nations they considered enemies. They loved to paint gay people as a threat to marriage, seeming to miss the irony that heterosexual people were damaging marriage at a furious pace without any help from gay couples.”

OK, this just doesn’t make sense. Is Brian trying to make the case that because church pastors didn’t stand up against rampant divorce and infidelity (even among Christians) that it’s now OK to love the homosexual lifestyle? (He answers that in chapter 17 “Can We Find A Way to Address Human Sexuality Without Fighting About it?” And unfortunately, when we get to that chapter, the answer he presents is anything but Biblical.) Just because pastors have done a lousy job of preaching the truth about sexual purity, personal holiness, etc. doesn’t give Brian the right to rampantly gut what the Bible says about ANY issue, not just homosexuality.

He continuously makes a case that there is a “brutal tension between something real and something wrong” in the faith. (ANKoC p. 7) The “something real” is apparently his view, and the something wrong is the “Greco-Roman” worldview strawman argument that Brian believes the rest of us conservative believers hold. After time though, he tips his hand and lets us see his cards:

“My spirituality was intact – because I was learning that there is a kind of faith that runs deeper than mere beliefs – but my belief system was in shambles. Little by little, though, a new coherence begant to emerge. That coherence was more a new way of believing, less a rebuilt system of beliefs, and I felt compelled to try to share what I was learning and experiencing. So I began to write, and from that time of theolofical collapse and spiritual recovery, my first book took shape, The Church on the other Side.”

This is the key to understanding McLaren.

McLaren readily admits that his belief system was in shambles. What he believed was falling apart, and as a result he was hobbling together a new belief system that would be based on doubting many of the core beliefs that makes Christianity what it is. During this time he “felt compelled” to try to share what he was learning and experiencing. So here’s the crux of it: Brian McLaren was having a faith crisis, and he was writing about it, and passing off his new-found doubt as the new faith of Christianity.

Let’s get something straight. I have no doubt that there are problems in evangelical circles. That’s true. But men of God don’t shipwreck the faith of others by casting doubt everywhere they go. Real men of God speak the truth in love.

So now that he has painted his side as one that is slowly coming to believe what is “right”, let’s take a look at what he poses as the “other side”. (THat would be us conservative, orthodox Christians who believe the bible is inerrant):

“The other side” referred to a position after the beginning of what I called the “postmodern transition.” On the past (“before”- side of the transition, in the modern era, nearly all our Protestant denominations had been formed. They were insitutuional children of the era of Sir Isaac Newton, the conquistadors, colonialism, the Enlightenment, nationalism, and capitalism. each denomination made sense of Christianity within the lines and boxes of modernity. You might say they rewrote and rearranged the anciend “data” of Christianity…..”

As for Brian’s definition of Christianity, he slams us as being part of a modernistic mindset, that is antiquated and behind the times. My question would be why does inception during the Modern era make something bad? Instead, Christianity is a product of Christ. Those who are truly following Christ don’t sit down and think, “You know, I need to make sure that what I believe was steeped in modernism.” Yet Brian’s argument later is that Christianity is fractured because of this very reason, that we are of a “colonial” mindset. Keep in mind that he is writing this of people that he is calling his “fellow Christians”, who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Many modern inventions that help man are from modernity. Should we throw them out too?

Instead Brian paints his “side of the equation” as follows:

“…the old modern paradigm…. was giving way to a new postmodern paradigm of pluralism, relativism, globalism and uncertainty – or at least a different kind of certainty, at its best more akin ro humble confidence. Modern Protestantism in both its liberal and conservative forms was being lost in transition and lost in translation.”

McLaren even goes so far as to say that those of us who are Protestants “seemed equally clueless” to what was going on outside of our churches. Brian’s broad-brush painting of Protestantism while wearing myopic glasses has painted a picture of us that’s simply untrue. Where in Scripture are we told that being pragmatic and relevant are the answers to a lost and dying world that so desperately needs a Savior? Instead we read the following in Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:32-40 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (33) who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, (34) quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. (35) Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; (36) and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. (37) They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (38) (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (39) And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, (40) because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Those who were of faith were men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. Does that sound like pragmatism? Does that sound like a description of being relevant? No, it does not.

Even in this first chapter Brian reveals where it is that he went astray. He was listening to polluted wells, sources who were also writing and agreeing with him, yet they themselves were not holding to traditional, orthodox Christianity, people like: Brian Walsh, Stan Grenz, and Leonard Sweet. McLaren writes:

“In spite of our diverse backgrounds, we all agreed: something isn’t working in the way we’re doing Christianity anymore. And although we didn’t know exactly what to do about it, we knew that we needed to keep talking and searching together- through the Internet, conferences and retreats, books and networks. So our quest for a new kind of Christianity had begun.”

Notice what’s missing from McLaren’s search: the Scriptures! Having heaped up for himself teachers, authors, writers, and conference speakers who were saying what he wanted to hear, it’s apparent from his new book that he’s drifted even further off course.

How could he not drift away from historic Christianity when he gives credence to people like Phyllis Tickle? This is the same woman who said at Rob Bell’s church that when we’re taking communion we’re “feeding the god within us”. She’s also said that it’s only a matter of time before Sola Scripture is gone. Beyond this she has continued to deny many core Christian beliefs and is a promoter of homosexual marriage.

With McLaren drawing from such polluted sources, no wonder he’s gone astray.

Stay tuned, and next the next installment will show even more problems with the “un-faith” of Brian McLaren.

Review: Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”, Pt. 1

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews, Heresy, Uncategorized on Apr 4th, 2010 | 0 comments

Brian McLaren (part of the emergent “conversation”) has recently published a new book called “A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith“.

McLaren published the book in 2010 with HarperCollins, and it’s been quite a hit. As of mid-April 2010, it’s currently #484 at Amazon.com for book sales, and #4 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith” category.

Brian describes himself inside the back jacket cover as “an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.” He also says “here you will find a provocative and enticing introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

My disagreement starts there. What McLaren presents isn’t an introduction to the ‘Christian faith’ at all. While McLaren may be describing what he thinks faith will look like in the future, he has intentionally mischaracterized much of evangelical Christianity, presenting a straw-man view that modern Christians worship a faulty idea of God that’s derived from the “Greco-Roman” lens. Once McLaren sets up the straw man at the beginning of the book, he proceeds to prop it up and knock it over in each chapter.

Each of the 10 questions gets one chapter of discussion. Yet once McLaren asks the questions, he often dodges direct answers, or using Hegelian dialectic methods, he sets up “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” answers that often employ gross mischaracterizations of evangelicals. He seems to practice rather long-winded exercises in “missing the point.”

This isn’t orthodox Christianity. It’s doubt.

Brian slowly introduces his brand of liberal post-modernistic poison, until by the end of the book the views he expresses are at direct odds with what Christianity believes, all the while calling it “an introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

I plan over the course of several serialized blog posts to show how Brian’s opinion of the Christianity of the future isn’t a true picture of biblical Christianity, but is instead a picture of wolves running amok in the church.

Just to give you an example of the anger that seems to seethe just below the surface of his book, consider the following:

On page 191 of Chapter 18: “Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?”, Brian  mischaracterizes conservative Christians, especially those who hold to an eschatology that Jesus is coming back soon with the world being consumed by fire. He seems to reject both ideas as old-fashioned and in the way of the Kingdom work that needs to be done. (Yet both ideas of Jesus’ imminent return and the destruction of the earth are both Biblical: See Revelation 22:20, and 2 Peter 3:12)

Listen to what he says on page 192:

Those of us raised in dispensationalist circles can regale one another with stories about scary “left-behind” sermons, sometimes illustrated through huge and serious wall charts and dramatized in B-rated movies. These sermons often climaxed with warnings about the second coming, when Jesus will return like “a thief in the night” – initiating the “Rapture” when “born-again Christians” will (we were told) be miraculously evacuated to heaven and the rest (includign the children of “saved” parents) will be left behind for a nightmare apocalypse. As a boy of about eight, having come home from school and found the doors locked and nobody home, I once spent nearly an hour sitting on my back porch, deeply dejected and with rising panic, sure that the Rapture had occurred and I was a child left behind. Who knew a third-grader could feel such terror and despair?

To the uninitiated, this all might sound pitiful or laughable, like wild conspiracy theories shared on strange Web sites or middle-of-the-night AM radio. But surprising numbers of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have also been thoroughly catechized in this eschatology through televangelist broadcasts and books (and newer B-grade films) in the Left Behind Series, which have broken sales records around the world. If they only focused on speculation about who the antichrist is (I remember hearing it was Khrushchev, then Henry Kissinger, then Saddamm Hussein, and now apparently odds are being placed on Barack Obama!), their eschatological hobby might be harlmess enough – like a crazy uncle obsessed with UFOs. But in recent decades, dispensationalism and it’s eschatological cousins have become significant factors in the foreign policy of the richest, most consumptive, and most well-armed nation in the history of history, and that’s where things get even scarier than a B-grade movie.

Here’s where McLaren really begins to mischaracterize Christians:

If the world is about to end, why care for the environment? Why worry about global climate change or peak oil? Who gives a rip for endangered species or sustainable economics or global poverty if God is planning to incinerate the whole planet soon anyway? If the Bible predicts the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (or requires that rebuilding for it’s prophecies to work in a dispensationalist framework), why care about Muslim claims on the Temple Mount real estate? Why care about justice for non-Jews in Israel at all – after all, isn’t it their own fault for being on land God predicts will be returned in full to the Jews in the last days? If God has predetermined that the world will get worse and worse until it ends in a cosmic megaconflict between the forces of Light (epitomized most often in the United States) and the forces of Darkness (previously centered in communism, but now, that devil having been vanquished, in Islam), why waste energy on peacemaking, diplomacy, or interreligious dialogue? Aren’t those simply endeavors in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? And since even Jesus can’t set the world right without taking up the sword and shedding swimming pools of his enemies’ blood (recalling our discussion under the Jesus question), what’s so bad about another war, and maybe even a little torture and genocide now and then? If God sanctions it, why can’t we?

McLaren’s idea of writing a scholarly approach to “Christian Faith of tomorrow” seems to involve mischaracterizing Christians, setting up and knocking down a laughable straw-man argument that we view Scripture through a “Greco-Roman” lens, spewing forth vitriol at fellow Christians – all the while holding forth a smug attitude of false humility and piety.

Reader be warned! This book is not about the coming Christian faith. It’s McLaren’s attack against the faith that’s already been delivered to us.

In the next segment, I will be discussing Question 1, “What is the Overarching Story Lline of the Bible?”

Chris Rosebrough’s accurate handling of Brian McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christianity”

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews, Heresy on Apr 3rd, 2010 | 0 comments

In Christ Rosebrough’s post on Extreme Theology, he does an excellent job of rebutting Brian McLaren’s argument that Christians today no longer worship the God of the bible, but some other god of Greco-Roman origin. Says Chris:

In the opening chapters of Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity he posits one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments I’ve encoutered to date as to why Christians need to abandon the historic/traditional understanding of the Bible and create a ‘new kind of Christianity’. McLaren’s contention is that today’s Christians are guilty of looking backward at Jesus through a Greco-Roman narrative lens that misconstrues and distorts the true nature of God and the gospel message itself. (Source: ExtremeChristianity.com )

Chris then quotes from McLaren’s new book, “A New Kind of Christianity” (which contains many errors that I plan to explain in upcoming posts).

In particular, Christ states:  “And his caricature and straw man mischaracterization of the God worshipped and believed in by historic Christianity through McLaren’s ‘theos’ character is nothing more than intentional dishonesty on his part.”

I am reading through McLaren’s new book, and plan on having a complete review done soon. In the meanwhile, I definitely recommend that you read Chris’ well-prepared rebuttal of just a small part of McLaren’s work.

Paul Washer’s book – “The One True God” is a great read.

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews on Apr 29th, 2009 | 0 comments

Paul Washer’s “The One True God”

A close friend of mine recently gave me a copy of Paul Washer’s workbook called “The One True God.” I am a fan of Paul, not for his delivery style, or his enthusiasm, but for his desire to know God, and for his clarity of doctrinal thought. Paul is someone who “rightly divides the Word of Truth”, and I am overjoyed at having this workbook in my posession.

Paul’s desire in the book is to get believers to have an encounter with the One True God through Scripture. He does a great job of meeting his desire, because this workbooks is full of Scripture. It doesn’t hurt that the version he chooses to read from is the NASB – my personal favorite.

I began studying chapter 1 of the workbook, which is on Deut. 6:4 (God is One), and the concept of the trinity. The workbook is very thorough, and the Scriptures used were from books in both New and Old Testaments. Paul’s aim is having you go through the Scriptures instead of just giving you answers.

I was very satisfied with the beginning of the study, and I plan on continuing to use the study for my own enrichment and for assisting my church.