More of God, More of Me.

You have probably heard people say 'more of God, less of us'.

This is well intentioned and sounds all pious, humble and nice. But good intentions are often not enough. It is actually upside down thinking. You see, the closer to God we become the more we become who we actually are; the more truly us we become. The further away from God that we are the less human we are.

The more we are aware of God's love for us the less that we try to find that in other things and or other people. It's when we haven't grasped the width, depth and height of God's love for us that we will go to all sorts of depth's, width's and height's in search for love. Coming to grips with God's love us - which is not an easy thing to do - will actually help us to be more truly human, more truly us. Jesus was fully aware of the Fathers love for him. He remained in the Fathers love. He knew his Father, he was secure in his love, and he trusted in that love and so was able to be completely obedient to Him. Often we don't know God like he knows us, so we trust in ourselves and love ourselves more than God, and so become obedient not to God, but to our own agendas.

May we really know the width, depth and height of God's love. May we know that nothing can seperate us from the love of our God in Christ Jesus. May we become more of who we already are; may we become more truly us, as we allow God to have more of us. I pray that we can know the love that Jesus knew from God. And that his prayer for us in John 17:26 will become true for us all 'I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them'.

The Shack Review

REVIEW OF WILLIAM P. YOUNG’S THE SHACK(WITH ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL INPUT FROM DAN THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT APPRECIATE :)

Well, let’s be honest, the book has certainly generated a lot of interest and conversation amongst Christians across the world. There hasn’t been book of late (which I can think of) that has been so widely read by believers and which has created such a stir. So much so, since The Shack, gone are the days when you distinguish believers as either Calvinists or Arminians. No, it appears from my experience, you can now nearly categorise Christians into either: [1]
1. Those who liked The Shack and 2. Those who don’t!
It is for this reason that I wish to write this review. As after reading the book, I discovered that I didn’t fit into either of the two categories - I seemed to find myself somewhere in the middle of those two views (and I don’t like to be left out), so I wanted to offer a more balanced approach towards understanding this book. An approach that is healthier than simply ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ as many have done who fit into Category 1, and more helpful than ‘placing all your theological eggs into one basket’, as many have done who fit into Category 2.
WHAT CATEGORY AM I? Let’s begin by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book (So maybe I have already aligned myself with Category 1 - I don’t know?!). I found The Shack extremely engaging, super-interesting, creatively written and superbly emotive. I found myself crying, laughing and being healed by the Spirit of Grace all at the same time.
BOOK GENRE, DIFFICULTIES & MARK DRISCOLL
It is difficult to critique such a book, as it is a rare and untapped genre called Fictional Theology[2]. Precisely because of this it is hard to review. This is because, it is easy to cast off much of what we don’t think to be theologically correct as its fictional side or poetic licence if you wish, and those parts we are comfortable with, as we are happy to say are the theological parts. So it is important that we avoid this trap when we are reading.
I have read many reviews of this book and I am sad to say that I think most of them dig too deeply into critiquing its theology; forgetting that it is not written to be shelved alongside the likes of NT Wright, Donald Carson or Barth. This wasn’t Young’s focus, so we shouldn’t be critiquing him along these lines. This said, it certainly contains much content that offers up an understanding of God so we cannot simply ignore its theological significance. Yet, the book, in my view, could just as easily, and possibly more appropriately be shelved as under the healing, counselling and pastoral care banners.
I like the work of Mark Driscoll but his recent series on Doctrine where he basically highlights heresy within The Shack is really clutching at straws and making a mountain out of a mole hill[3] Many have embraced what Driscoll has said and believed the book to be heretic. Others have gone a step further and called it satantic.
Some may say, maybe I am ignoring the subtle theological heresies and not being discerning enough and so accepting any new doctrine. Well maybe – Maybe not! But Driscoll’s recent attack is scathing and I don’t think offers any helpful feedback or insight to those who have really enjoyed reading the book or those who aren’t going to read it because of the scornful reviews. However, some may like to hear his comments. If you do, then follow the link below at footnote #3 for some of Driscoll’s comments on The Shack.
SO HERE ARE SOME (NOT ALL) OF MY THOUGHTS?
The Shack is a story of real healing, renewal and restoration through the extravagant love of an all embracing God who longs for nothing more than for us to let him love us and heal us so that we can enjoy a rich relationship with us. I think it is important to take with you as engage with this book.
GOD IS LOVEThe book is helpful to challenge much of the beliefs that many have about an angry God; a God who wouldn’t want a relationship with them because they are to sinful. I was speaking to a friend the other day who expressed that if they walked into a Church building that God would burn them up upon entrance. This view of God is common and perhaps, unintentionally, the church is somewhat responsible.
I mean, maybe the ways in which we which we have shared the Good News over the years hasn’t been received as Good. Perhaps we have shared the Gospel as ‘you need to get yourself right’ with God before he will accept you. Forgetting that God created you and loves you and ‘while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’.
Perhaps we have focussed too much on us telling people that they need to embrace and love God, and too little time on showing them that God wants to embrace us and loves us if only we would let him.
Perhaps we’ve spent too much time teaching that Salvation is a passport to heaven, and not enough time teaching that Salvation is a relationship that we enter; a relationship with the Father, that we enter through the Son, made possible by the Spirit.
Perhaps we have focused too much on people needing to have a relationship with God, and too little focus on the fact that God wants to have a relationship with us and that he has gone to great length to reconcile us back to himself.
And what if we’ve taught too much that sin separated God from us – as if God couldn’t even love us because of our sin, and too little time teaching that sin separated us from God (Col 1:21), and that God has been wanting to draw near to us and reconcile us back to himself ever since.
So Young, has written a great book that shows us that God is Love and wants to embrace us, if only we would say Yes to him.
TRINITY
What Young has been able to do in this book, is something that many well respected and theologically sound theologians haven’t been able to do in many years. That is to help Christians who maybe haven’t done a Theology degree grasp a little more about the magnificence yet mystery of the Trinity.
I can understand if you coughed (I did) at the character descriptions of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and wanted to put the book down – I trust you didn’t though, because even in this portrayal there is much we can learn. Young’s choice of the word ‘Papa’ for instance to speak of ‘Father’ I think is brilliant. I believe that Young gets it right when he portrays God has deeply personal yet neither male nor female (Genesis creation narratives). His depiction of the Trinity, which has been slammed by many, has actually done more for understanding the relational element of the Trinity (perichoresis) than many theories, analogies, or illustrations have achieved in the past. It must be noted here that Young’s intention wasn’t to write a theological book about the Trinity (As Driscoll says he does), so some of his depictions need to be filtered through scripture, however, Young has opened people up to seeing and experiencing a greater life and love within the Trinity. (For a deeper investigation on the nature of the Trinity, I recommend reading the book Theology for the Community of God by Stanley Grenz)
I grew up believing that the best way to understand the Trinity was that of an Egg. There is the Shell, the Yolk and the White yet all three parts make up the 1 egg. So these 3 parts of the egg represent the 3 parts of God – Father, Son and Spirit.
I struggled with this analogy for a number of reasons, but mainly because I was sure that the God who created the world and loves it isn’t an egg. I was lucky to grow up on an egg farm, but you don’t have too, to know that you cannot talk, relate or engage with an egg. I didn’t think eggs were the smartest things going around. I did learn, however, that eggs were great for eating and the occasional egg that was laid without a shell was great for playing catch with my cousin.
The trouble with these types of depictions of the Trinity (ie the three forms of water) is that they are static, immovable, motionless descriptions of God. God is dynamic not static. The other trouble is that I can extract the egg white from the yolk to make a beautiful pavlova (ok, I lie, my mum can do that). But the question remains, if the three are one then I shouldn’t be able to do this, right?
In the Shack, Young has shown us that God is moving and dynamic; he is relational and humanity can be in relationship with him. He has added life and dance to the Trinity which is lost in most traditional representations. Young has also powerfully illustrated to us that our lives were created to be lived within this loving relationship.
CHRISTOLOGY
Some have said that Young often depicted a low Christology. I didn’t see this. The Shack is about God’s overwhelming love for man and his desire to heal us emotionally so that we will be free to have a full relationship with him. It makes clear that Jesus is at the center of that plan, I cannot see that Young has a poor Christology.
ATONEMENT
On this point scholars argue back and forth, some till they are red in the face. I’m sure that some people will even disagree with my conclusions, but here goes anyway. I apologise in advance if I make this more long winded than necessary.
Many people hold different views as to how we are made at one with God through Jesus. The classic theory to understand how Jesus saves is called Penal Substitution. I am not going to go into this theory as this isn’t the place. However, it is important to note that I don’t believe that Young would support the penal-substitutionary view of the atonement - at least not in the way it is commonly caricatured within our churches. I will touch on this ever so briefly in a moment.
If I’m honest, I struggle to support this traditional approach to the atonement too. Although I note that it has strong biblical support and so we cannot ignore it altogether. However, I suggest that maybe it’s more appropriate to view the way that Jesus saves like a Diamond. In that it is multifaceted and has many sides, and from which ever angle you view it you get a fresh ray of light on the magnificence and depth and colour of what Jesus achieved for us.
This posture I believe more accurately represents the biblical descriptions of the way in which Jesus saves. Ie. The bible speaks about the Jesus life, death and resurrection as; a ransom, a rescue, freedom, the forgiveness of sins, victory over death and more. So like a diamond is multifaceted, I believe the atonement should be viewed in the same manner.
Back to the Penal-Substitionary view. Often I find the trouble with this theory lies not so much in the theory itself, as there is a biblical basis for it, but more so in the way in which it is commonly caricatured or presented.
The commonly disturbing caricature often pits an angry God against a sinful man/women and a loving Jesus. The angry God wants to take out judgement on us but thanks to a loving Jesus, we are spared the wrath because Jesus stepped in and saved the day and took the blow for us. This can sound ok, yet looking deeper into the caricature there is much wrong with this caricature.
Ignoring the argument about whether or not God turned his face away from Jesus on the cross, this presentation of the theory separates the Trinity supposing that God is angry and Jesus is loving. So it reinforces the world’s view that God is mad and we are bad. It makes Jesus look good, but the question then that people ask is, if Jesus died to bring us into a relationship with God, who wants Jesus if he leads us to an angry God? I understand that this is over simplistic; however, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this over simplistic caricatured shared in church. We need to be careful how we share about the way in which Jesus saves.
And at times it can fail to mention that sin is actually what separated us from the Father in the first place. I also have trouble with this caricature as it doesn’t put us with or in Jesus. This is often caricatured by the phrase ‘God now sees us through Jesus coloured glasses’. Again, this sounds nice, however, it is dangerous as it leaves Jesus and us separate in that we are just seen through Jesus whereas Romans teaches that we are actually IN Jesus. Some may say this is just semantics, however I disagree. As if I am just seen through Jesus then I can do and live as I like because I am separated from him – it doesn’t need to change my behaviour. But if we understand that we are IN HIM and WITH HIM – that we have died his death and were raised with Him, then this necessitates a change within us and it has to impact the way in which we live our lives everyday.
The other trouble with this caricature is that it can look like cosmic child abuse. Many non believers hear this think – how can God love if he sends his one and only Son to die. That isn’t loving, that’s just cruel and abusive.
Now many believers may scoff at this and think it’s ridiculous, but many non Christians do not see this as a loving act at all. Our most popular bible verse - John 3:16 - which talks about the Love of God for this world, is regarded by this world as one of the cruellest and unloving things a Father can ever do.
So, I’m sorry to get carried away on all this, and also to be so short in discussion on it all. Libraries are full of conversations around the atonement theories, so who am I to pretend to know it all here – and please hear me, I’m not trying to. And also, who am I to put words in Young’s mouth, I have never heard him share his views on the atonement. However, I believe that a person’s understanding of the Trinity will affect their understanding of the atonement. So all I want to do is to show how Young seems to understand the Trinity in relation to the Atonement. And my hope is that rather than slam him because he doesn’t seem to hold to a classic understanding of the atonement, that the book can actually help us to resharpen our pencil as to how we might best share the good news of how God saves us in Jesus. I believe that this book can appropriately challenge us to share first and foremost about the depth, the width and the height of God’s love for us. Romans 8:38. I believe it can effectively help us to share the good news about the good news.
SALVATION/RESTORATION
I think that Young’s depiction of salvation is a little too narrow and individual. His view is too limited to personal salvation and hasn’t got enough emphasis on the restoration of the wider creation. For a deeper analysis of this please read the Siders review of the Shack which is attached.
I came across this review which interestingly suggests that William P Young needs to read NT Wrights book – Surprised by Hope – to get a more rounded understanding of salvation and restoration. If I am honest I have only read about four chapters of Surprised by Hope, but from what I have read the review from Sider seems more than appropriate. I strongly encourage you to read the review at the LINK below.
http://www.esa-online.org/Images/mmDocument/PRISM%20Archive/Ron%20Sider%20Column/NovDec08RonSider.pdf
HEALING.
Another important point that Young highlights is that the healing of the broken places in our lives is a process and a journey. Young rightly paints that God longs to heal our deepest wounds, yet He is gentleman and so doesn’t charge in unwelcomed.
Yes, God has and God can heal people of deep pain immediately. But more often than not this healing process is a journey. It is a journey into our shacks that have been built over many years. So why do we think that it is going to be restored immediately? For Young, he testifies that his journey of healing was over 11 years. Healing in often hurtful and difficult but with the embrace and love of God it is possible. If only we would trust him with our healing.
MY CLOSING THOUGHT
I would strongly warn against people using this book as a replacement for the Bible or bible studies as I have heard some are in the habit of doing. It is not a theology book. It is not designed to replace the bible or to build a bible study around. It isn’t its intention so let us not use it in this manner. Let us always uphold the scriptures as God’s inspired and timeless word for us.
A few final things that concerned me a little about the book:
1. The line ‘Jesus is the BEST way to God’. Well, Jesus isn’t the best way, he is the only way. Jesus is THE way, THE TRUTH and THE Light. If Young is only referencing Jesus as being a way – then there is trouble here.
2. Some believe that Young holds or as is at least sympathetic to a universalists view. At times I did think that this was present but not overall. It is important to understand that Christ’s blood was shed for all. Yet a response to his love is still required. A yes is required.
3. It can be easy after reading this book to ignore many of the passages of scripture that talk about God’s wrath and judgement because we like his love better. It is necessary to understand that God has a Holy Love. And although at times we cannot and do not know exactly how to connect the dots on this, it shouldn’t mean that we ignore what we don’t like, rather we should research more and ask God to enlighten us. This is something that I will continue to do


[1] (I could press this distinction further but that would be to give away my theological underpinnings and to possibly disagree with some and alienate others, so I won’t today.)
[2] (I personally think in our post modern culture this genre is more important than we realise. I actually hope to see more of this genre in the future)
[3] http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y follow this link to see parts of Driscolls sermon

Twenty4Seven Worship

I don't think it's just semantics.

The word 'worship' has a myriad of meanings today. We use it to talk about 'total life-response to God, songs, prayer, sermons, Church meetings and more. Is it helpful having the one word for all these different meanings?

I was speaking to someone I met for the first time the other day, and while introducing themselves said 'I worship at 'XYZ Church'. And I thought to me self 'No you don't'. I mean I hope you don't just 'worship' there, that would be very plain and very boring for you'.

But it got me thinking....I wonder whether by calling our corporate gatherings 'worship services' we are actually doing people a disservice. I wonder if we are actually encouraging people to think that worship only happens between 10-11am on Sundays? What if we are actually hindering people from understanding that new-covenent worship is a 'total life-response to God? Some may say it's just semantics - we know what we mean when we say 'worship'. But do we? What if its not just semantics? What if its actually doing more damage than good to followers of Jesus?

Romans 12 says 'So here's what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life—your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life—and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him'.

I don't have all the answers for this problem (and I do believe it is a problem) but can I suggest a couple of possible ways in moving forward.

1. Use the word 'worship' to refer only to our 'total life-response to God'. It may be best to speak of congregational worship as a particular expression of the total life-response that is the worship of the new covenent. ROMANS 12.

2. Be intential to reinforce and tag Sunday Church services as a time of 'CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE, or CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP'.

3. Emphasise our 'songs' or 'prayers' etc as a particular expression of our 'total life-response to God'.

4. Follow Pauls lead - Paul regularly uses the terminolgy of building up or edification, rather than the language of worship to indicate the purpse and function of Christian gatherings. 1 COR 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26; 1 THESS 5:11; EPH 4:11-16.

These are not exhaustive I know, but I wonder if we adopted these small changes to our language/terminology we would actually see large effects on people living their 24/7 lives in response to God. I wonder if we would actually see people view their decisions, their thoughts, the work, their choices as worship. I wonder if we would then see a shift and people would actually see that worship is relational; that is it's about 'WHO not HOW and WHEN'.

References: IVP: New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Pg 861

A Close Distance: Prayer

Eternal God, who lives above and beyond this your creation, there is no one like you.
Who is like you? Who is like our God?
- who is above all this world in motion;
- who is above all the world’s chaos and confusion;
- who is above all our hopes and our fears;
Self Sufficient God, Lift up our eyes to see you enthroned above the earth, We proclaim there is no one like you, we are not like you, no one compares to you. We acknowledge that we cannot fully comprehend you or describe you. You are incomparable, incomprehensible and indescribable.
Yet from beyond the world you came to us, you come to us, you relate to us, you reveal yourself to us.
We join with the writer of Ecclesiastes and say:
“You are God in heaven and here am I on earth”.
Not to say that you are distant, disinterested or unplugged from us, but rather to recognize that you are God and we are not; to acknowledge that our salvation was not gained because of our own clever building projects or labor, but your initiative and your action.
So we can therefore relax and let our words be few. And simply in obedience; in awe; in wonder; and in sincere reverence, we worship you God Almighty. And declare that “Our God Reigns over all the earth” and we join with the Angels and sing Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.
Amen

Oh God who dwells in the midst of your creation; who is through all and in all, I praise you because you are near; you are close. You know me so well, God. You are closer than a brother to me. Where can I go that I can hide from you? What path can I walk that you haven’t walked with me? Where can I run that you won’t be there waiting for me? What road can I travel where I would travel it alone?
At times I feel lonely and abandoned, with no friends to talk too, no mates to enjoy life with, but I know I am not alone. Help me God to know that you are near.
In the storms and in the calm; in the dark and in the light, I know you are not far from me because in you God I live and move and have my being.
Spirit of God, I pray that you move and continue to work in the lives of those who don’t yet know you. My friends, who haven’t heard you calling their name, reveal yourself to them, make yourself known to them.
Likewise, help me to be close to those around me, sustain me and strengthen me to love and be compassionate towards those I have close contact with, as you are with your creation.
I praise you God for travelling with me, for being personally present through your Holy Spirit.
Amen

Upside down love

HAVE YOU HEARD IT SAID BEFORE…
“You have to love God more! You have to be on fire for God MORE! Love God with all you have! You must have more passion for God!”
Why do we say this? Are we right? Is life about loving God more?
Are we meant to break our backs to love God more? Are we meant to do more so we will love God better?
Is life about loving God more?
When you think about it for a minute – its actually seems crazy to think like this. Think about it… Do you think God has to have our affection in order to feel worthwhile? As if, if we didn’t love him enough then he would have feelings of insecurity, doubt and loneliness.

Or have we maybe got love upside down?
I mean, maybe life isn't so much about us striving to love God more- as it is about us letting him love us more.

1 John 4:16 says - God is love. God has a lot of love to give and He wants us to share in His love.

I went to the Goodwood markets a little while back with a friend. There was a caged off area for kids to play with animals. There were chickens, pigs, goats and bunnies. We saw one little girl who was trying to pick up and hold this little bunny. But the bunny was running away and she couldn’t pick it up to hold it and cuddle it. And we saw her coming towards us trying to love and hug this bunny. And the little girl said to us “The bunny doesn’t want me to hug it”
My friend, as quick as a flash, replies to the little girl in what I thought was an amazing answer - “No, he just doesn’t know that he does”. And as I heard that I thought – Wow! That is just like us. Like the bunny, often we just don’t know that what we need is to experience his embrace – so we run and hide rejecting his chase of us because we are afraid; rejecting his pursuit of us because of our fear; rejecting his embrace because of our unworthiness; rejecting his love because of our unloviness. We fall for the lie that we are not worthy for God to love us. That we aren’t good enough for God’s love. We feel shame and we begin to think that “there must be something wrong with me” – so therefore I do not qualify for God’s love. We begin to think like Adam & Eve that when we see or hear God coming near to us that he is coming to point out our sins, to punish us rather than to reach out his hand to pick us up out of our mess and restore us to himself again. So what do we do… how do we respond? -well rather than reach out our hand to allow him to pick us up we back away in fear and turn our heads and hide ourselves from his outstretched arm - from arms that weren’t trying to punish us - but embrace us (Luke 15). In all of our fear and attempts to cover up and hide from God we forget a vital truth about God's love. What is that….? we forger… that God loved us while we were yet sinners "Christ arrives right on time to make this happen. He didn't, and doesn't, wait for us to get ready. He presented himself for this sacrificial death when we were far too weak and rebellious to do anything to get ourselves ready. And even if we hadn't been so weak, we wouldn't have known what to do anyway. We can understand someone dying for a person worth dying for, and we can understand how someone good and noble could inspire us to selfless sacrifice. But God put his love on the line for us by offering his Son in sacrificial death while we were of no use whatever to him.” (Romans 5:6-8).

He wants to love us. If only we would realise that this is the very thing that we need most too.
If only we would stop feeling unworthy of his love. If only we would stop thinking that God wouldn’t love me. If only we would stop hiding and running from his love.
If only we would stop striving to love him more, and learn to be still and let him love us, I dare say that we would actually begin to live life well.

I love the way that John so beautifully describes and defines what real love is:-1 Jhn 4: 10 This is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us.
It is not about our love for Him, but His love for us! After all, we can only love because of his love for us. – 1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Let us stop striving and trying to love God more. Let us, let him, love us.

Does our ‘faith’ save us?

Does our ‘faith’ save us? No. We are saved by grace, justified (declared that we belong to God) through faith.
What is faith? Faith is a response to grace. ‘By grace through faith, we are saved’. Our faith does not earn us salvation or save us in any way.
Our faith, which is responding to the wooing and reaching out to us of God, is just that, a response only, not works. God always takes the initiative, and is continually calling our name and drawing us toward him. If we hear his voice and respond with ‘Father’ then we have simply responded to his grace.
For a Calvinist, this response is too much, as it is entirely up to God as to who is saved and who isn’t. Erickson says ‘the recipient is, in a sense, passive in the process’ (Erickson, pp 904) Although I appreciate a Calvinist concern for upholding God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation, I cannot look past the fact that if God has determined people to remain hard-hearted and not repent why do we continue to see the prophets call people back to God if they can’t really turn from their ways. Faith is a response, but it’s not passive.
This choice is not a source of merit, but an expression of God’s grace: free, universal, and resistible. It is my understanding that the Calvinist position as outlined in TULIP is inconsistent with the revelation of God in Jesus in which grace is resistible and operable in the lives of everyone to some extent, the offer of atonement is universal, election is Christocentric, and perseverance is a call as well as a promise[1]. Maybe my personal experience of a marriage separation causes my biases in this direction to be heightened, but I certainly feel that love is resistible, and so too grace. As I read through the scriptures and come across frequent calls to ‘choose this day who you will serve’, I am only more assured that faith is a badge of justification.
God is a gentleman, he doesn’t come and bash down peoples doors to enter a relationship with them, this is abusive and disrespectful, rather he politely knocks and continues to knock.
A not perfect, but relevant analogy for understanding if our faith can save us is evidenced in the online sensation of MySpace – a network by which relationships and communities are formed. People make up their own space called a profile, which is representative of them and their life.
Imagine for a moment, that ‘God’ has a myspace profile. If He was to invite ‘You’ to be his friend, to join his profile, and his community of friends, then ‘God’ would click on ‘Your’ profile and hit ‘add to friends’. This will then send a message to ‘You’ saying that ‘God has invited you to join him and his friends’. ‘You’ then have 2 choices, to either accept or deny his invitation. If ‘You’ presses the box ‘accept’ then ‘You’ are added to ‘God’s profile and community of friends and ‘God’ is also added to ‘Your’s. This analogy is not perfect I know, but if coupled with the recognition that God has invited everyone to join his profile and that turning to Jesus means a turning away from self, then it is appropriate.
This is evidenced in scripture. In the 1st century, being unclean meant that you couldn’t worship God in the Temple; therefore you were cut off from His presence. The significance then of Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners is that he’s saying that you don’t need to go to the temple to have your sins forgiven, Jesus, God in skin, comes to you.
Salvation is the process by which the Spirit applies the work of Christ to draw us into relationship with the Lord and with each other in community.
It is best pictured as a relationship, entering into and becoming a part of an already established relationship, the relationship of the Triune God. Salvation is not a one off event where, our sins are forgiven and we gain a fire insurance certificate with no continuing fees, into heaven when we die.
This caricature of salvation is not only unbiblical in that it is incomplete, but it is seen as a ‘win win’ situation for many. They believe that they can have their sins forgiven and then do whatever they please on earth because they will go to heaven anyway. But salvation is not an event; it is being caught up into the life of God, united with Him.
Salvation is a relationship, initiated by God and entered into by faith, that is responsively as we love God because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). So our faith is not what saves us, it is better seen in terms of trust and represented as faithfulness, as it should lead to actions that show our commitment to what we believe to be true.

A diamond and the cross

Paul and the early church certainly saw that the death of Jesus dealt with human sinfulness. The way in which this happened, the way in which Christ saves, is the conversation that occurs within the doctrine of the atonement. The bible speaks of several ways in which to describe the saving work of Christ. Over 2000 years of history, councils and great Christian thinkers, the church has not settled or set in concrete an atonement theory that is to govern orthodoxy. This is indicative of the multi-faceted nature of the atonement.
The atonement has been best described like that of a diamond. From different angles you get varying views of its brilliance. There is no specific angle that you can view the atonement from which you will see all its components. The bible uses many key terms and metaphors to speak of the salvation event. Romans 3:25 speaks of sacrifice; Mark 10:45 speaks of ransom; Eph 1:7 of redemption; Romans 3:24 of Justification, Romans 5:10 of reconciliation; Col 2:13-14 of forgiveness and Col 1:20 speaks of victory over evil. This small cross section highlights again the multifaceted nature of the atonement.
Although the bible uses many different metaphors to describe the atonement, a few key theological and historical realities need to be present within any atonement theory.
A few of these are: that salvation is the work and initiative of God alone, sin is a real and serious problem and the atonement is not a result of a split Trinity – ie the Father vs the Son. Each theory must also attest to the fact that Jesus’ death cannot be over spiritualised so as to neglect the reality that Jesus died in first century Jerusalem, and as 1 Peter 1:20 makes plain, the cross was in the eternal plan of God.
Within this framework we see a number of atonement theories. The Christus Victor Theory, The Penal Substitution Theory and the Moral influence theory to name a few.
Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses. A truly biblical understanding of the atonement requires that all the strengths of each theory are taken up, while their weaknesses are left behind. The most popular of these is the Penal Substitution theory. This is regarded as influential within modern, evangelical circles, and the most commonly used atonement theory.
The strengths of this theory lie in the many New Testament passages that support it. Plus, it takes sin seriously and ultimately punishes sin. However, weaknesses also cloud this theory. To modern minds it sounds unjust, and in the way it is frequently caricatured seems to divide the Trinity. The way that this theory is often caricatured in our churches depicts God the Father as angry and wrathful and looking to take his anger out on sinful humanity, but a loving, innocent Jesus, steps in and takes our place, substituting himself for us. This depiction of the atonement has led many to see the cross as a form of cosmic child abuse and retributive violence.
The Christus Victor theory is strengthened by its focus on the defeat of evil and passages from the NT that speak of price, ransom and redemption. However, a weakness of this theory is that is fails to portray a sense that Christ death was ‘for us’ Instead, the emphasis is on Satan and God. The Moral Influence theory, which is classed as a subjective theory, because the effects of this model rest in the attitudes of humans rather than a change in circumstance. The strengths of this theory is that it reflects a relational framework and views sin as a matter of rebellion of our hearts towards God, yet it can downplay the reality of sin which leads to the cross being more about reconciliation than forgiveness. So within these three theories alone, you can see the many differing angles evident in the atonement.
The reason why the atonement is multifaceted is due to the fact the bible makes reference too many metaphors as we have seen. But it’s also because there is no a-cultural atonement theory. It is best when sharing of the way in which Christ saves to use a metaphor that speaks to the need that people are most conscious. If a prisoner has been imprisoned for some time he would be feeling a need to be released. Therefore speaking of Christ death as a ransom may probably be appropriate and most meaningful.
Although it is important to find a metaphor of the atonement that speaks to the needs of the hearers, this raises an important question of how much do you not say about the saving work of Christ in order to make it appropriate to the hearers. Or, how much should culture dictate the truth of the message of the cross.
Any atonement motif must declare the work of a Trinitarian God and express that God’s holiness and love were working together. An appropriate way to move forward to avoid this mistake is to always ensure that any atonement metaphor is told in the context of the gospel story.
It is also necessary within any talk of the atonement to stress that Jesus wasn’t just our substitute, in that he took our place and we weren’t involved, but that we died with him and are found in him on the cross. This is expressed as participatory substitution.
Although the death of Jesus is multifaceted, it must never be denied that his death was for us.

'God why have you done this, why?'

A popular car bumper bar sticker reads ‘Life’s a bitch’. I would suggest there wouldn’t be many in our world today who would argue this point. Particularly when we can pick up our papers or open news.com and read about the devastation caused by the fires in Victoria. Although I don’t hold to this truth in its entirety, there have been many times when I have thought that life is tough and unfair. Let’s be honest, the Fires in Victoria are a tragedy and seem extrememly unfair. A tragic loss of innocent lives, shattered hopes and dreams, destruction of homes and the loss of loved ones and families. Surely you could be excused to cry out to God in anger saying ‘God why have you done this, why?’ In fact, I actually heard many people say things very similar to this. The many pictures we have seen shows us that life hurts, and that suffering is a part of life. But, is it fair to blame God for the fires? It seems to me that in today’s world if things are ‘good’ then we award that to ‘fate or luck’, if things are experienced as ‘evil’ then God gets the blame. Is this fair? I’m not saying that God is unable to handle the criticism, I don’t believe he needs defending, but is it right that God becomes the scapegoat for all things evil, particularly natural evils like tsunamis, floods and earthquakes? Take the Tsumami of Boxing day 2005 for example. Clearly, a distinction needs to be made between the effects of the Tsunami and the Tsunami itself. Surely it would be incorrect to call the Tsunami itself evil, just because it resulted in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives. So why is it that we immediately denounce the possibility of a good God and the biblical worldview just things seem out of control? As I look at sad pictures from the Tsunami , I see God actually grieving with the grieved; hurting with the hurt and suffering with those that suffered? I understand that this doesn’t answer why God allows the suffering, but I think that those who are suffering if given a choice to know why they are suffering, or to be overcome of their suffering, would take the later every day of the week. It shows us where God is when tragedy hits, and this is in midst of the worlds chaos and confusion, defeating the evil. God is not behind evil and he certainly did not create it, neither did it exist prior to creation. Evil stands in opposition to God. If you are looking for me to explain evil and give a detailed account as to its existence then I’m sorry. To be honest with you, there’s no real answer or explanation as to why evil exists in a world supposedly ruled and governed by a good God, at least one that satisfies our quizzical minds anyway. I am actually of the conviction that not having the answers for evil shouldn’t worry or concern us anyway. The bible doesn’t seem to have its focus on explaining the origins of evil. In fact, it doesn’t even seem interested in the ‘why’ of ‘how’ of evil, rather, and thankfully I believe, it’s more interested in the defeat and overthrow of evil. What the bible does speaks of however is a battle between good and evil; and ultimately points towards a winner. Viewing evil through ‘battle lenses’ like I have proposed, correctly views evil in our world not as a creation of God, but as a result of God’s good choice to create genuinely free human beings. The bible speaks of a promise that God will make all things right. This world is upside down to the way in which he purposed it. But God is in the business of turning this world ‘right way up’. So when evil and suffering are evident, I don’t question God and ask ‘why’, instead I say ‘God, life hurts, do something about it please’. And then together we join in the ministry of justice and reconciliation.
The cross speaks a better word than all the empty claims that we can offer people who suffer and question faith and God. This is because God was revealed in Jesus, and therefore in him we find someone who understands our suffering as he was not spared emotional or physical pain, he experienced all that we do. The cross on which he suffered and died was also the cross that has assured victory over evil for those who believe.
You see, I believe the tsunami is an unavoidable effect of the commotion caused by the ensuring battle between good and evil. This doesn’t mean I don’t mourn or a saddened by its effects, God is, but I believe that the cross is where evil, not Christ is ‘left for dead’, for three days later Jesus rose in victory, and so I have hope.

Learning to become better dancers

I’m a hopeless dancer - I’ll be honest with you. I cannot put one foot in front of the other with any type of grace or rhythm. But I like to watch good dance. A tango or waltz when performed by experts is an enjoyable experience (watching me is more of an enjoyable comedy routine). I watch the creative, dynamic way in which the partners move with each other, embrace each other, with purpose, and unity – and I wish I could dance better.
There exists, however, a dance that is far more beautiful than a well performed waltz. It is the eternal dance of The Triune God. For an eternity the One God - Father, Son and Spirit have danced on centre stage in perfect rhythm and a selfless loving embrace, all the while, revealing the dance to others and calling them to join.
For many people the eternal dance of the Triune God has been too difficult to describe or understand. So many have either written it off as a ‘mystery’, saying ‘it’s a great dance but of no relevance for my walk with God’. Others have attempted to draw a picture or diagram of the dance resulting only in a static and isolated representation, which hasn’t done it justice. So what does this dance actually look like? In order to understand this dance we need to explore the Christian understanding of God.
The Christian understanding of God is that he is Triune. That is, the one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is One, God is three, God is Diversity and God is unity.
We understand too that God is a revealing God and is thus known first in our experiencing Jesus, the Son of God, through the work of the spirit. This is the eternal community of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in operation.
We understand God to be relational. When we think of oneness we think of individualism, but when we speak of oneness in relation to God we need to think more in terms of a community of persons who love each other and live in agreement and union. Father, Son and Spirit only live in, with and through each other - the dance would cease if this weren’t the case.
We believe that there is no unequalness or subordination in the persons. Each person lives for the other with selfless love. There is a fancy theological word called perichoris which describes this, but the English word ‘enveloping ’is an equally beneficial way to describe this relationship.
Our understanding of God is that he is love. John tells us that the essence of God is Love. Love only occurs between two persons and it requires a subject and an object. If God wasn’t God in three person, then he wouldn’t have been able to appropriately love. He would have needed to create humanity in order to love. But because the Father loves the Son, and the Son can reciprocate that love, then God in his being is love. Love is what moves the dance internally and externally.
The Trinity is actually the Gospel story – God’s story. It is the story of the Creator, Redeemer and the Sanctifier. The cross of Christ is central in this story of Immanuel, God with us. If there is no Trinity then there is no Revelation, therefore there is no Salvation, as Salvation is being caught up into the life of God - being caught into the dance of God. Only when we understand we are not alone, but have been embraced into the divine dance can we embrace one another.
So how should understanding God as Triune make a difference in the life of our church? Ultimately, it should encourage us to become better dancers; more in step with his rhythm and lead every day. Listed below are 5 dance steps that reflect the relationship between the Triune God that we should learn and apply.
1. Trinitarian doctrine should make a difference relationally and in reaching out. God is relational; our church should reflect this through encouraging the activity of gathering together and avoiding isolating ourselves from others. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ, and the people of God and as we live like this we become a revelation of God to others.
2. Trinitarian doctrine should also affect our models of church governance. No member of the church should be seen to rule all the power. A hierarchical structure should be changed in favour of a model that encourages mutual sharing and servant leadership. There should be unity in diversity within leadership.
3. Trinitarian doctrine should affect the way we pray. We can address our prayers dependent upon their purpose to one the Trinitarian members. Ie. God is our source, so we when we lack we can have his provision. We can thank Jesus for his work on the cross and thank him for his work of intercession and that we look forward to his return. We can pray to the Spirit to continue his work in the world.
4. The doctrine of the Trinity should lead to a life of humility. As each person of the trinity lives for the interest of the other, so we too should humble ourselves for others rather than control and coerce.
5. Baptism should take on a strong importance as we are being baptised into the triune life God. This is the foundation of Christian theological identity, that we are a part of the story of the God.

All of Life Worship

What if the opposite of Worship is not 'no worship' but Idolatry.

We are all created and wired for worship. The question is not 'will we worship?' But 'who will we worship?' Will we trust God or will we trust in earthly things? We often trust in earthly things more than we trust in God, and so these earthly things become our idols. It could be a relationship, a job, a sporting team, a drug or an addictive behaviour. I want to suggest that much of the reason why we don't worship God is because we don't know Him well enough to trust in Him. Worship and trust are linked. If we knew God better we would see that these earthly things are not worthy of our worship, that they will not satisfy. But because we don't know God like he knows us we trust in these earthly things over God. So, rather than trying harder to worship God, let us start letting him love us; start getting to know Him more; and begin to trust Him with your life...your worship will grow from here.