Category Archives: book review

HCSB vs. ESV Update

Posted on by

HCSB Study Bible[Update #2 - 4.28.09] There’s a rumor floating around that the 2nd edition of the Holman Christian Standard Bible will be coming out in September of this year. However, I got an email from Jim Baird, the Vice President of Marketing and Sales, informing me that it won’t be coming out until 2010.

[Update #1 3.31.09] I recently wrote a post about why I love the Holman Christian Standard Bible translation. Will at Anwoth tipped me off to the updated data that the HCSB has now surpassed the English Standard Version on the Christian Bookseller’s Association Best Seller List. You can find their bestseller lists here.

Last month when I wrote my previous post about the HCSB and the ESV, the NIV was #1, the ESV was #5, and the HCSB was #6. Now, the NIV is #1, the HCSB is #2, and the ESV takes sixth place. I predict that we will see the HCSB as the #1 Bible translation of choice within the next year.

Will does a great job of attributing the success of the HCSB to 3 factors:

1. It is readable and appeals to all English speaking Christians.

2. But it is very accurate, not willing to succumb to tradition or doctrinal biases in the translational choices. This appeals to the scholars.

3. Finally, though the marketing from the publisher hasn’t been particularly effective, the viral marketing has been very effective.

I think the ESV appeals to a lot of extremely reformed individuals and has been talked about by their champions (Piper, Driscoll, etc.) But, the HCSB is far superior as a translation because it seems to supercede the calvinism vs. arminianism debate. All translations have a slight bias but the HCSB may be the most unbiased translation ever to be produced in the history of Bible translations. So when I say that I really like it as a translation, I don’t think that’s a biased opinion. :)

You can buy the new Holman Christian Standard Bible here.

Why I Chose the HCSB over the ESV

Posted on by

Be sure to read this 3/31/09 update!d231828fd7a04b0a79a15110l

I think I’m tired of hearing about the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. Let me be clear, I’m grateful we English speakers have so many versions of the Bible to choose from, but when a version is elevated to cult like status something’s wrong. I skim through a lot of blogs and people are always writing posts saying “Mark Driscoll said ‘x’” and “John Piper said ‘y’”. Since they are ESV users, all the Christian bloggers seem to jump at the chance to be like their hero.

The ESV-Only Crowd

I like Mark Driscoll and I like John Piper and I’m grateful for the ESV. However, I don’t think it’s the best English version of the Bible out there today and the only reason it is outselling the others is because of its cult-like following. I’m afraid that in 100 years when it’s time to move on to a fresher translation people are going to be “ESV-only” fanatics. People will be saying, “Don’t you know that when Moses received the Ten Commandments, they were written in ESV English?”

To be honest, the ESV is a “formal equivalence” or word-for-word translation that is too rigid and literal. I don’t see how ESV lovers see a difference in the ESV and the NASB (again, I like the NASB as much as I like the ESV – I just think they are too literal and hard to read). The only thing I’ve heard that is different about the ESV is that it seems to use less words to say the same thing as the NASB, so it is a simpler translation by comparison and therefore seems easier to understand.

That’s What I Thought!

On the opposite end you have the NIV. The NIV is a “dynamic equivalence” or thought-for-thought translation. The NIV is very readable but it looses a lot of the precision of a word-for-word translation. They both have their problems. One is too literal and rigid for an idiomatic language such as Greek. The other is too loose with its interpretations of the thought of the original author. Sometimes the NIV makes a decision about what the author intended that other scholars disagree with. But when you commit to a thought-for-thought you have to claim to know the exact thought the author intended.

Optimizing the Translation

Enter the only “optimal equivalence” translation – the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Now, before I sound like other bloggers who think the ESV was handed straight to them while they were hiking up Mount Sinai one day, let me say that the HCSB also has its theological slants just like all translations. I’ve done lots of comparisons on a verse-by-verse basis between the Greek text, the HCSB, the NIV, and the ESV (especially in the New Testament) and I can tell you that there are some translations that will occasionally translate a verse better (in my opinion) than the HCSB. But time and time again I think the HCSB puts the verbage in a way that is both more precise than the ESV and more readable than the NIV.

Basically, “optimal equivalence” is a marriage between formal and dynamic equivalence translation. It’s the best of the ESV AND the NIV styles. The HCSB approaches translation with a word-for-word mentality, but when that just doesn’t quite get the essence of the meaning the translators used the phrase-for-phrase method. If there is something idiomatic in the text, the HCSB translators have the freedom to deviate from a literal interpretation and capture the sense of the author’s intent.

HCSB + ESL = A OK

The HCSB is the best English translation for both the understanding of the author’s original meaning and for modern English speakers. It is a bridge between the ancient world and the modern world. It is the translation of choice when I give a Bible to an international student who might be learning English.

Let me conclude by saying, I’m not in love with a translation. However, I felt it wise to push back against the cult-like following of the ESV and say that there are other options for people who don’t do everything Driscoll and Piper tell them to do. Our translations will always have a minor problem here or there and we should always strive for the best but let’s not get involved in translation wars. Whatever you’ve chosen as your translation (remember, The Message is not a translation) spend time in it, hide it in your heart, let it draw you closer to God. For those of you who are ESV users I’m grateful that you’ve found it helpful and understandable.

Note: Here is a great information source that includes video and history of the HCSB translation.

Update: The Christian Booksellers Association lists the HCSB as the 6th most popular Bible as of March 2009. The ESV is #5 and the NIV is #1.

You can buy the new Holman Christian Standard Bible here.

“In the Beginning” by Henri Blocher

Posted on by

41fjpd8hg1lHenri Blocher is a Professor of Theology at Wheaton College. His book: In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis is both helpful and informative. It is academic, yet accessible to those of us who aren’t specialists. Blocher does a masterful job of explaining not only the purpose of Genesis, but also deftly maneuvers the controversial difficulties that have arisen especially in the modern era as science has advanced.

In Chapter 1, Blocher talks about the approach to Genesis. Dominating the discussion is the question of whether to approach Genesis literally or figuratively. Before reaching his conclusions, however, Blocher spends some time talking about the role of science in the interpretation of Scripture. Blocher presents the main approaches to this question: Concordism which seeks to rectify science with the Bible, “anti-scientism” which is Blocher’s view of creationism (the alternative to evolutionary theory), and fideism which seems to suppress the issue altogether. Blocher proposes a new way that allows science to “serve” our approach to studying Genesis, but not authoritatively. God’s Word is the authority and Blocher tries to take the positive advances of concordism, anti-scientism, and fideism and use those positives to help understand the book of Genesis. When he concludes the chapter talking about the literal or literary interpretation of Genesis 1, the reader can see that this is a unique story unlike any other story ever written.

Chapter 2 is a specific look at the week of Creation and it is Blocher’s view that the seven days are a literary device used to show the framework of God’s creating act. He writes, “The proofs we have given [in chapter 1] of the author’s careful structuring of his material would be enough to warn us not to suppose that the sevenfold shape is either imaginary or incidental.” (39) In this chapter, Blocher approaches four major interpretations of Genesis 1 in order of probability. Opponents may disagree, but the order in which Blocher organizes the probability of these theories begins with the reconstructionist theory as the least probable. This theory believes God reconstructed His creation after the fall of the devil. Next comes the concordist interpretation which is the idea that the days in Genesis 1 are ages or geological eras. Thirdly, Blocher deals with the literal interpretation that says the days are literal 24 hour days. Finally, Blocher believes the literary interpretation to be the best and he spends the rest of the chapter making the case for this interpretation.

Chapter 3 is about the content of Genesis 1. Rather than focusing on the framework and what that means, Blocher encourages the reader not to lose sight of the real purpose of Genesis. He suggests that if we get too caught up in science and creation then we may forget all that God is communicating to us. We can be distracted from the fact that God created ex nihilo, we can forget the work of all the members of the Trinity in the act of creation – including the Spirit, we can forget some of the characteristic nature of God (like He is a God of peace, not of disorder), etc. It is important to consider the purpose rather than just the conflict with modern science when we study Genesis.

Chapter 4 has to do with the Image of God and how humans are image bearers, unique among all the animals in their relationship with God. Blocher first makes sure we are sufficiently humble in our understanding of being “in the image of God”, in that we are “only an image.” “Mankind is infinitely lower than his Creator.” (82) With that humility as the backdrop, Blocher then turns to the privileged status we have over the rest of creation and talks about what it means to be made in the image of God.

In chapter 5, Blocher writes about the relationship between man and woman. The man and the woman are different sexually, with differing roles and yet they are connected. He treats “from the rib” as figurative language for their connectedness and relationship with one another Blocher supports this assertion when he says, “The Arabs apparently use the expression ‘He is my rib’ to mean ‘He is my close friend.’” (99) Blocher concludes the chapter by talking about the institution of marriage and that “the charter of marriage is summarized in Genesis 2:24″ (108), that is, at least implicitly.

Chapter 6 focuses on covenant. Even though that word doesn’t exist in Genesis 2, Blocher believes it to be of primary importance for understanding that chapter. The outline of the covenant is found in the text according to Blocher. “Eden is the covenant gift.” (120) The two trees in the garden become “the chief provisions of the covenant agreement.” (121). “You shall surely die” is the penalty for breaking the covenant. This outline implies a covenant between God and Adam.

Chapters 7 and 8 deal with the breaking of the covenant and the penalty for Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Blocher suggests that at the heart of their disobedience was the desire to claim autonomy. This disobedience “overthrows the created order.” (154) As a result of breaking the provisions of the covenant agreement, Adam and Eve must die. However, they don’t “cease to be” as is our normal understanding of death. Instead, our understanding of death must “broaden and diversify”. It is not mere physical death but it is of a spiritual nature. Blocher writes, “As soon as the disobedience is committed, the beauty and harmony of existence is shattered, and in their place come shame, fear and pathetic excuses.” (173) Their death is a result of their “claim to be like God in their autonomy.” God curses the man, the woman, and the snake and sends them out of the harmonious existence of Eden (the covenant gift).

Finally, Blocher concludes in chapter 9 by talking about the nature of the aftermath of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden of Eden. Much is written here about Adam and Eve’s son Cain who killed his brother Abel. “Sin proliferates along with mankind.” (197) but God is merciful and though it seems that only God’s justice is on display in the opening chapters of Genesis there is an element of grace. For one thing, Blocher writes that God kept Adam and Eve from eating from both trees because that would’ve been unthinkable. He hinders the completion of the Tower of Babel by confusing their language. This is to prevent the unthinkable from happening. Therefore, God’s justice is merciful. But ultimately, it is through the promise of the seed of the woman that we see the grace of God on full display.

Blocher concludes with a very helpful appendix on “Scientific Hypotheses and the beginning of Genesis”. Several scientific theories are given and this appendix helps to show that there is some harmony in science and the Bible. Taken together, every chapter of this book is both descriptive of events as found in the opening chapters of Genesis and relevant for many of today’s controversies surrounding those chapters. Blocher’s work is a commentary on Genesis that is helpful to the pastor, the theologian, and the general laity.

My Top Ten Christian Books

Posted on by

banner1Many of my readers have read my post about the Christian fiction book from William Paul Young entitled The Shack. I appreciate all of your comments and questions about that post. This new post is in response to what Mike asked. He said.

Hey, can you give me a list of maybe 10 Christian nonfiction books you would recommend and maybe 10 fiction books to read? Thanks.

So, Mike, thanks for that question. I can only give you a sampling from the books I personally have read. If others would like to offer suggestions in the comment section of this post…that would also be helpful.

Top Ten Christian Nonfiction Books (in my library that I believe everyone should read).

ß. Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

ß. The Complete Works of E.M. Bounds on Prayer

ß. Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

ß. On the Incarnation by Athanasius

ß. A Mind for God by James Emery White

ß. The Question of God by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

ß. The Post Christian Mind by Harry Blamires

ß. Does God Believe in Atheists by John Blanchard

ß. Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton

ß. Sacred Companions by David G. Benner

Top Ten Christian Fiction Books (in my library that are not necessarily the unorthodox pop fiction of today like “The Shack”)

ß. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

ß. Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis

ß. Ben Hur by Lew Wallace

ß. The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

ß. Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

ß. The Silver Chalice by Thomas Costain

ß. Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan from Baker

ß. The Zion Chronicles Series by Brock and Bodie Thoene

ß. The Zion Covenant Series by Brock and Bodie Thoene

ß. Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls

What about you? What are your favorite books? What would you like to see on this list?

“On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius

Posted on by

41qq3xagoqlC. S. Lewis’ introduction to On the Incarnation by Athanasius might be the most important introduction to a book that I’ve ever read. Lewis first makes the case that reading old books are more important than reading new ones. If you can only have time to read an old book or a new one, he encourages the ordinary reader to read the old one. He reasons that, “A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it.” (4) He suggests that, if possible, you should read an old book for every new book that you read.

To better understand the emphasis Lewis places on old books, Lewis wrote, “People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.” (5) A steady diet of old and new books is helpful to keep us from being led astray.

After making the case that we should add old books to the new ones to balance our diet, Lewis goes on to introduce On the Incarnation. He comments on the masterful way in which St. Athanasius uses the classical Greek to communicate his ideas. He calls him a “master mind”. After such an introduction by such an important Christian thinker of the modern era, the reader is inspired to begin reading Athanasius.

In chapter 1, Athanasius finds it important to return to the story of the Creation and the Fall to discuss why the Incarnation was necessary. He writes, “It was our sorry case that caused the Word to come down.” Athanasius reasons that the Word became incarnate in order to bring about a recreation within humans precisely because it was the Word who created humans in the first place. In this first chapter Athanasius also writes about how we bear the Image of God within us, though he spends much more time on this later.

In chapters 2 and 3, Athanasius begins by writing a fascinating paragraph about the goodness of God. He writes about how God couldn’t simply back down from his promise that Adam and Eve would “surely die”, but neither could He just let humanity perish with no hope of redemption. Both options seem “monstrous and unfitting”. He then asks, “What, then, was God to do?” (32) His answer is to discuss how “the incorporeal, incorruptible, and immaterial Word of God entered our world.” This incarnation proves the goodness of God with which Athanasius began these two chapters. However, humanity still rejects the Incarnate Word of God. In fact, “So burdened were they with their wickedness that they seemed rather to be brute beasts than reasonable men, reflecting the very Likeness of the Word.” (40) At this point, Athanasius revisits the Image of God that was impressed on humanity from the beginning and “renew[ed] His Image in mankind.”

Chapter 4 talks about the death of Christ and of the importance of that event. Clearly, humans deserved death as Athanasius pointed out in chapter 1. He writes that it is in the death of Christ that God is proven to be good. He even takes great care in explaining why Jesus must die, why it must be a public death, why it must be a dishonorable death. Athanasius even uses the imagery of the cross that made it necessary for Jesus to stretch out His arms for us. He writes, “it was that He might draw His ancient people with the one and the Gentiles with the other, and join both together in Himself.” (55) This may not have been THE reason for Jesus’ outstretched arms on the cross but it illustrates an orthodox position and it is emblematic of the type of imagery of which Athanasius is capable in this book.

Athanasius begins chapter 5 which deals with the resurrection, by talking about the perfect timing of the resurrection. It wasn’t too short that people doubted whether or not Jesus really died, but it wasn’t too long that people would doubt whether it was in fact the same body. It is the resurrection that truly and fully proves the power of God and His power over death. That was the curse in the garden and that is the hope of our Savior, that death will be defeated in Him. He inspires us not to be afraid of death but even as young children we should train ourselves to die.

But obviously, not all believe in the Incarnation of God and wouldn’t understand the necessity of His death on a shameful cross and would scoff at the idea of a bodily resurrection of our Savior. It is for this reason that Athanasius turns to the unbelief and ridicule of both the Jews and the Gentiles in chapters 6, 7 and 8. Athanasius turns first to the Jews and declares that the evidence against the Jews unbelief lies “in the Scriptures which even themselves read.” (64) He uses 18 direct quotes from the Hebrew Bible and several other allusions to confirm that Jesus was in fact God as a refutation against the Jews unbelief. Then, Athanasius confronts the Gentiles. The Gentiles, to Athanasius are “utterly astonishing” in their disbelief because they seem to laugh at God and “yet fail to see the shame and ridiculousness of their own idols.” (75) Through a series of questions, Athanasius deconstructs the unbelief of the Gentiles: “What is there in our belief that is unfitting or ridiculous?” (76) When did the worship of idols become foolish and “spurned under foot”? Athanasius answers this with, “when the true Wisdom of God revealed Himself on earth.” (83) Truly, God Incarnate accomplished much while on earth and Athanasius enumerates many of the deeds of Jesus. He asks, what king or tyrant ever accomplished as much as Jesus did?

In his conclusion, Athanasius sums up the Incarnation and states his purpose to Macarius: “This will give you a beginning, and you must go on to prove its truth by the study of Scriptures.” (95) This is a good reminder to all the readers of this short work of the importance of the Incarnation of God to our lives.

The Challenge of Preaching Today

Posted on by
This is Part One of a book review of the still timely work by John Stott entitled, Between Two Worlds.

After months of discussing the relevancy of preaching I have decided to write a book review of one of my favorite books on preaching. This book was written in 1982 but still has importance for important questions we have about the validity of preaching. People are asking, “Does preaching still connect with people today?” “Have preachers overstated their own importance and role in the life of the church?” “Where in Scripture do we find preaching that is exhortational in the church as opposed to evangelistic preaching in the marketplace?” The book Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today goes a long way in making the case that preaching is a God-ordained vocation that is still essential to the building up of the body of Christ today.

A Historical Sketch of Preaching

John Stott is the Rector Emeritus of All Souls Church in London. He has been an Anglican and an evangelical almost his whole life. He has written over 50 books and has been a major leader in evangelical Christianity. [Source] 

In the first chapters of this book, Stott describes the glory of preaching. From the prophets of the Old Testament there has always been the man of God singled out to preach God’s Word. This sweeping sketch of the history of preaching invokes both a sense of humility and confidence in any would be preacher. The confidence comes first in that this is an historic calling that God himself calls men to preach and that we may stand with centuries of faithful men and women who have refuted error and stood for truth. This confidence is in the glory of those who have come before us. He quotes Charles Hodge who said, ”In every age, great reformers have been great preachers.” Today there is still such a need and God still chooses broken vessels like us. Stott also quotes Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said, “The preacher should be assured that Christ enters the congregation through those words which he proclaims from the Scripture.” I’m not sure that there are too many people today that still believe such a controversial statement.

After a deep confidence that is in the majesty and glory of God that is displayed through preaching must come humility. Stott makes sure the preacher understands that ”The ‘message’ is God’s own Word. For the people have not gathered to hear a human being, but to meet with God.” A preacher doesn’t preach his own message but preaches the Word of God. He is a herald that proclaims not a lecturer that postulates. Richard Baxter is another one of the preachers Stott highlights. Baxter was successful in converting almost his entire town to become disciples. He was systematic in his catechizing of every family every year and also in his public preaching. Stott writes, ”This catechizing would occupy Baxter two whole days a week, and was one essential part of his work. But the other part, ‘and that the most excellent because it tendeth to work on many’, was ‘the public preaching of the Word’.” Baxter valued preaching because it was an opportunity every week to share the message with many hearers. That seems to be a value lost on today’s anti-establishment crowd.

Contemporary Objections to Preaching

The second chapter in Between Two Worlds is about the contemporary objections to preaching. He writes, ”The prophets of doom in today’s Church are confidently predicting that the day of preaching is over.” Written over 25 years ago, these words not only ring true, they have become an understatement. He lists three major arguments launched against preaching: “The anti-authority mood, the cybernetics revolution and the loss of confidence in the gospel.” I won’t go into each one of those things but will simply make some comments from the chapter as a whole.

Stott writes that ”Christians know from both Scripture and experience that human fulfillment is impossible outside some context of authority.” As I read through this section I thought of the church through the example of “the family of God”. It would be silly if a dad didn’t correct and teach and exhort and discipline his own children. What a silly family it would be if it resembled a complete democracy. Besides, a sermon is not just an authoritarian monologue…if crafted well, the preacher has already thought through the issues that would arise in the hearts and minds of his people. Stott writes, ”Preaching is rather like playing chess, in that the expert chess player keeps several moves ahead of his opponent, and is always ready to respond, whatever piece he decides to move next.”

Another topic Stott deals with in this chapter is how people learn. When disciples learn, they do so through listening, discussing, watching and discovering. Most would say that the preacher is limited to teaching the congregation through listening but that should not be the case. The preacher can and should provide opportunities for discussion but Stott goes even further with teaching people through observation. Not only has God ordained baptism and the Lord’s Supper as participatory visual aids, but the preacher himself is a visual aid. Titus was told, “Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds.” Were it not for this example-setting, our words as preachers would fall on deaf ears. This gets to the heart of the purpose for my blog and the reason for the title ChurchETHOS. The way we live should be a visual aid to our congregation to help communicate Biblical ideas and the congregation itself is to be a visual aid to the world. 

Stott concludes that ”There is no other form of communication which resembles [the sermon] and therefore could replace it.” He writes, ”For here are God’s people assembled in God’s presence to hear God’s Word from God’s minister.” When we as listeners of a sermon have that sort of anticipation about what we will soon hear, how can we not hear from God. 

Theological Foundations for Preaching

There were several great thoughts from this chapter. The first that I thought was crucial to the success fo the pastor was that “Technique can only make us orators; if we want to be preachers, theology is what we need.” From here, Stott discusses various convictions that a preacher must have if he is to be successful. First, a preacher must have a conviction about God that he is light, that he has acted, and that he has spoken. Secondly, a preacher must have a conviction about Scripture that Scripture is God’s written word, that it still speaks to us today, and that Scripture is powerful. Next, a preacher must have  a conviction about the Church and a conviction about the pastorate.

Finally, a preacher should have a conviction about preaching. Specifically, Stott believes in expositional preaching that transcends subcategories of topical or textual or narrative, etc. He writes, “Exposition has a much broader meaning. It refers to the content of the sermon (biblical truth) rather than its style (a running commentary). To expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view.” He believes that ”The Word of God is the scepter by which Christ rules the Church and the food with which he nourishes it.” The preacher contributes to this process by faithfully proclaiming God’s Word to the congregation.

What’s Next?

In the next part of this book review, I will look at the more practical chapters in Stott’s book. If the above issues raise any questions or objections to the role of the preacher in today’s culture, please feel free to discuss. I would highly recommend this book for your reading.

The Trinity Lives in a Shack?

Posted on by

Not long ago I was reading The Shack by William Young which has quickly swept through the Christian community as a bestseller. I’m not sure why or how this happens, but every once in a while a book (or series) comes along that promotes lazy doctrine and hyped-up, fundamentalist Christianity. I have to check myself every time a new book comes out because if it has universal acceptance and buzz I probably disagree with it…am I always wrong? I can think of books like Piercing the Darkness and This Present Darkness by Frank Peretti, The Left Behind Series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, and The Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson. Each of these books, including The Shack have been extremely influential in shaping the theology of the larger Church. Somehow when it’s fictional Christians seem more ready to apply it’s theology to their lives. This doesn’t seem like a good habit to me.

What’s Wrong With Fiction?

The problems in these books are concerned with issues like demonology, eschatology, and the health and wealth gospel, but The Shack has to do with arguably the most important doctrine in Christendom: the doctrine of the Trinity. That is why this book troubles me so much. Since Young decided to put the Trinity front and center in this book, I want to focus the attention on his trinitarian theology.

How Should We Describe the Trinity?

Recently, my professor said, ““He who tries to understand the Trinity will lose his mind. He who fails to believe in the Trinity will lose his soul.” Most theologians believe there are no illustrations that help us think of the oneness of the Trinity. Some explain the Trinity by equating it to H2O. A water molecule can be water, liquid, or gas. The molecule is one substance in three forms. The problem here is that a water molecule cannot be water, liquid, AND gas all at the same time. Others explain the Trinity by thinking of the different roles a person might have: she might be a teacher, a wife, and a mother. She is one person with three roles. However, the trinitarian God is one God in three persons and is accomplishing His three unique roles simultaneously…Father, Son, and Spirit. Still others use the example of marriage; a husband and wife are one. This is probably the closest we can come to an illustration of the Trinity, but it is still limited. For example, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” I may be one with my wife but I don’t always know what she is thinking. Sometimes my will conflicts with hers. We don’t always submit to one another fully. We often have selfish moments or times when communication breaks down between us. These are not problems the Trinity faces.

Those examples may be the best ones we’ve got when it comes to thinking about the Trinity but I think the best answer is, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?” (Ro 11:33-34) and “Listen Israel, The Lord your God, the Lord is One.” (De 6:4). It is actually refreshing that I love and serve a God who’s ways and thoughts are so much higher than my ways and thoughts. I can’t put God in a box or limit Him to human understanding. The uniqueness and the oneness of the Trinity among the other gods and goddesses of other world religions is probably the most compelling evidence in His favor. What human would’ve thought of this?

How Does Young Describe the Trinity?

And that brings us to the description of the Trinity in William Young’s book The Shack. The main character in the Shack is named Mack and he has an incredibly traumatic ordeal that sweeps him off his feet in the first chapters of the book. As he deals with his grief and loss he gets an invitation to meet God at the Shack which is where the traumatic event happened. When Mack arrives he is greeted at the door by Papa, a black woman who later reveals that she is God the Father. He also meets Jesus who is a somewhat clumsy Middle Eastern man with a large nose and Sarayu, a shimmery Asian woman who is presented as the Holy Spirit. They are extremely loving to one another in an anthropomorphic way that sort of creeped me out a bit. I don’t have a big problem with God being humanized as a woman since I know that God is neither man or woman, He is Spirit. However, I mostly had a problem with the Father and the Spirit being incarnated. I almost put down the book when Papa said, “I am truly human, in Jesus.” I can take a fictionalized account of the anthropomorphism of God but when that humanized figure of God the Father tries to teach doctrine that he is now human because of Jesus (as if that’s what Jesus accomplished) is taking fiction too far. This flies in the face of John 4:24 which states, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” In Young’s humanization of God, the Father becomes human, and not even a male human. He incarnates Himself as a woman human. God is Father and God is Spirit. These are attributes that can’t even be fictionalized in a woman character.

Young also tries to suggest that there is no sort of hierarchy within the Godhead. He writes, “Hierarchy would make no sense among us.” However, both the Spirit and the Son submitted to the Father but there is no indication that the Father ever submitted Himself to the Son or the Spirit. Jesus prayed in the garden, “Abba, Father! All things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will” (Mk 14:36). Here Jesus has submitted Himself to God’s will. The Bible teaches equality within marriage and in the Trinity but that there is a hierarchy when it comes to roles. God is the Father, the husband is the head of the household. Young offers no support for his theology that hierarchy makes no sense to the Trinity and that it is entirely a man-made structure (emphasis on the man-made part). 

How Serious is the Threat?

All in all, I find Young’s The Shack to be lacking serious theological truth. However, I don’t know that it will be entirely harmful to the Church. Most people will realize that God would notincarnate Himself as a woman and that Jesus is THE Incarnation of God. That incarnation didn’t make the Father and the Spirit humans. We are still to worship God in spirit and truth because He is Spirit. I don’t think people will begin looking for God to come and meet them in person in a shack of any sort. However, the danger here lies in incremental and subtle changes in people’s theology and concept of God. For that reason, I believe it is important to get these issues out in the open. The most important thing is to expose the bad habits of popular Christianity to latch onto these books that are written not by theologians or serious Christian thinkers but by people who are merely dabbling in theology. We must guard our hearts and minds against such things.

Related Post: Distinctively Christian: The Trinity

Subscribe to this Blog!

Join the Conversation!

The Irresistible Revolution

Posted on by

I just finished reading a book entitled The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. Shane has really challenged me in a lot of ways with his book. He has a strict non-violence view that I can’t totally jump on board with (which sounds bad, but I would need 5 minutes of your time to explain what I mean). He has some crazy thoughts on community and on social justice that I love and I hate all at one time. I disagree with him some, but mostly, I think he’s got a lot of stuff figured out about the way we should be living our lives as followers of Christ. It’s nothing new, it’s just a call to living a simple life of a disciple.

There was one paragraph that my friend Josh and I discussed earlier today. Shane writes,

As we practice hospitality, there comes a point where the suffering around us drives us to ask what it would take to reimagine the world. We’ve all heard the saying “Give someone a fish and they’ll eat for a day, but teach them to fish and they’ll eat for the rest of their life.” But our friend John Perkins challenges us to go farther. He says, “The problem is that nobody is asking who owns the pond.” As we consider economics, some of us will give people fish. Others will teach people to fish. But still others must be looking at who owns the pond and who polluted it, for these are also essential questions for our survival. We must storm the fence that has been built around the pond and make sure everyone can get to it, for there are enough fish for all of us.

As Josh and I talked about this paragraph, we decided that our church should be involved in every aspect of this to some extent. Giving away clothing or a meal to a homeless person or a bottle of water to someone in need is something we can do to give. Teaching ESL to an international student or partnering with a group like SIFAT is the second part. Finally, doing something about the fences around the pond is the long term goal of what we are doing as a church targeting the university campus.

This pond part is what excites me most. I do everything I can to invest in college students because these are the men and women who are going to be the decision makers and policy makers. They will be in education, in government, in business. In some countries, the corruption and greed of the government are keeping people from getting to the pond of health and the pond of essential needs. There are plenty of resources to go around, but it will be men and women of faith who can influence these governments and can teach social awareness that will make a difference in the needs of our different cultures. I get to play a small part, for a short amount of time, in shaping the thought of a small amount of young believers as they study here in Boston. My prayer is that God would be able to use me to influence people who will also be influential wherever they end up in life.