Blog Archives

You the people decide: Presbyterians vs. Baptists

One of my minor projects this week was to crush an opponent in heated debate.  To that end, I instigated an eventful Facebook debate.  The opponents:

Dave (debate)Dave Nannery (aka Banannery)
Your favorite blogger and a master of logic and theology.  Loves all of God’s creatures and was kind to a kitten once.  Wildly successful and loved by all the village folk.

Kyle (debate)Kyle Borg (aka Jr. Cheeseborger)
A friend, a brother of my former roommate, a rabid Presbyterian and seminarian, and a proprietor of the super-secret Synod of Saints blog devoted to dead theologians and infant baptism.

I encourage you to read our arguments and vote on who won!  (I.e. yours truly.)

Resolved:  Baptists are better than Presbyterians.

I argued for the affirmative (correct) position, while Jr. Cheeseborger argued for the negative (wrong) position.

Dave (debate)Hey Jr. Cheeseborger, I was just thinking today about what the main difference is between Baptists and Presbyterians, and as it turns out, the main difference is that Baptists are better. Your thoughts?

Kyle (debate)If by better you mean Baptists ignore the sound exegesis of covenant theology, ignore historical Christianity, and practically hate children, then yes, you’re correct. But I would say it all hinges on how you define “better.” :)

Dave (debate)Your accusations fall on deaf ears because some of the soundest exegetes from historical Christianity have been Baptists. For example:

  1. John the Baptist (duh)
  2. Jesus (who loved children)
  3. Peter
  4. Paul
  5. All the other apostles
  6. Your mom

∴ QED

I think the only way you could counter my argument is if you inserted your own little three-dot pyramid.

Kyle (debate)I’ll take your Apostle(s) Paul, Peter, et al, John the Baptist, Jesus, and my mom and raise you Augustine, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Herman Witsius, and Charles Hodge. HA! ;)

Dave (debate)Judging from the fact that you did not include a three-dot pyramid with your counter-argument, I can see that you have forfeited that point of the debate. Thus, after a brief celebration of victory, it is time for me to launch into my second logically airtight argument. Its premises are indisputable:

  • Premise 1: Most people believe that Dunkin’ Donuts is good.
  • Premise 2: Presbyterians believe that dunkin’ babies is good.
  • Conclusion 1: Presbyterians believe babies are donuts.
  • Premise 3: Most people eat donuts for breakfast.
  • Conclusion 2: Presbyterians eat babies for breakfast.
  • Premise 4: Baptists don’t eat babies for breakfast.
  • Premise 5: People who don’t eat babies for breakfast are better than people who do eat babies for breakfast.
  • Conclusion 3: Baptists are better than Presbyterians.

∴ QED

Kyle (debate)Premise two is disputable since it was only Luther who thought babies should be dunked, and last I checked he wasn’t Presbyterian. Not to mention I do not share your Aristotlian presuppositions, thus rendering any logical syllogism you can throw my way pretty useless. Logic is too circular—after all, what’s the logical syllogism to prove that logic is logical (go ahead and try to process that Baptist).
∴ QED
PS: Why do you hate children?

Dave (debate)Jr. Cheeseborger, allow me to dismantle your counter-argument point-by-point. You’re welcome.

  1. Regarding Luther: He’s dead, ergo your argument is irrelevant.
  2. Regarding Aristotle: See point 1.
  3. Regarding logic: Logic is not circular; it is pyramidal. Have you learned nothing from the three-dot pyramid? You are wielding its powers in ignorance, as a child wields his father’s gun.
  4. Regarding children: If I really hated children, I would bring them in front of the church to splash water in their faces for no reason.
  5. Regarding white space between paragraphs: You need it.

∴ QED

You can surrender at any time. There is no shame in giving up the debate!

Kyle (debate)Why do you hate children?

.

Dave (debate)YOUR MOM is circular.

Oooooooh, debate over! You lose!

Why is The Shack so successful?

The ShackAfter posting a one-sentence review of The Shack last Sunday, I followed up on Wednesday with a critique of William P. Young’s perspective on authority which he lays out in the book.  Today, I want to end with a few thoughts on why I think The Shack has become so popular and why it has had such a powerful effect on many who read it.  While this is not an exhaustive list, here are seven reasons why I think this book has enjoyed such great success:

1.  Story time

The Shack is a story.  Narrative—fiction or non-fiction—is a very powerful means of communication, and it is very effective at getting across an agenda.  We could turn to the Bible itself as a prime example of this; throughout much of the Bible, theology is given legs through pictures of God actually at work through the course of history.  I have read several people who try to deflect criticism from The Shack by appealing to its nature as a fictional work, but even fiction can have an agenda (good or bad), and this book certainly does.  Young’s writing style varies from passable to cringe-worthy (the “gilt edges”/“guilt edges” pun about the Bible from p. 66 comes to mind); his chapter titles are incredibly corny; he can’t seem to decide whether or not to give God the Father a consistent sassy-black-woman accent.  Yet the fact remains that the story is at times emotionally moving, and Young is just good enough as a narrator not to get in the way of what he is narrating.

2.  God the mouthpiece

Young’s primary means of revelation is through the members of the Trinity.  Nearly all of the important teaching comes from the mouths of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  The result is that these three become Young’s spokesmen (or spokeswomen?).  As his mouthpieces, they say what he wants them to say.  In a sense, this is an inversion of the biblical pattern where the authors of scripture became God’s spokesmen, saying what he wanted them to say.  Now, The Shack is meant to be read as fiction; however, there is a certain air of authority when it is God himself saying the things Young wants us to believe.

3.  Mack the claqueur

Lest I appear more well-cultured than I really am, I’ll admit that I didn’t know what a claqueur was until last night.  I actually found out while looking at the Wikipedia entry for “laugh track.”  And that’s one of the major roles of Mack’s character—to provide the response to the Trinity’s teaching that Young wants the audience to have.  It is remarkable how many times, after a member of the Godhead finishes pontificating on a topic, that Mack is said to feel like he wants to laugh and cry at the same time, or is said to feel a great burden lifted from his shoulders, or is said to feel excited and bewildered.  Mack’s emotional responses are a sort of hint that Young provides us as readers; they are a subtle suggestion that we, too, should be feeling the same way, just like laugh tracks in sitcoms inform the audience that a joke has been told and that it is funny (unless the sitcom is That ’70s Show or Friends).

4.  Emotional buzz

I’m not sure whether to be comforted or not by the fact that many people don’t seem to be reading The Shack for theology.  I find it comforting because it means that much of the false doctrine taught in this book will be ignored.  But I find it disconcerting because it means that these people are not reading this book to know God more.  Anyone who is seeking to know God more is seeking good theology (the knowledge of God).  Rather than striving for “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:8), many Christians are content to use books like this as a cheap drug, a means to getting an emotional buzz—a pseudo-spiritual “high”—that will get them through tough times.  The bad news is that while the God of The Shack may make them feel better for a little while, the “high” won’t last because Young’s God is so meager in comparison to the God of the Bible.

5.  Itching ears

There are others who are reading this book to know God more, and they are swallowing Young’s teaching hook, line, and sinker.  In my initial review, I referred to his God as “a Trinity invented by a 21st-century American.”  I doubt that this book would appeal to people outside of a modern Western audience.  It is grounded so firmly in the perceived needs and worldview of our culture.  We don’t want authority; we don’t want structure; we don’t want a sovereign God.  We want relationship without responsibility and blessing without being broken.  We want an idol carved out of God, where all his “rough edges” are sanded off and a newer, harmless deity is made for us to worship.  The Shack offers us this version of God, and it is no surprise that it has become so popular.  Paul warned Timothy that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

6.  A vein of truth

Despite all these failures, The Shack does teach a lot of true things about God.  It does portray God as caring for his people, as a God of unconditional love, as a God who isn’t a tyrant over his own.  It reminds us that he is immanent—God with us.  It admits that we live in a broken world, full of anguish, sorrow, and hurt.  And it tells us that God wants to restore his creation to the full beauty and harmony that it was meant to display.

7.  The salt has lost its saltiness

Finally, let me be blunt.  This book should not have been written.  By this, I mean that the above truths should be so obvious to people within the church that they do not need a fatally flawed book such as The Shack to remind them.  Moreover, people outside the church should see the love of God manifested in his people and their love for one another (John 13:35).  You and I—we have failed to show others the one true God by the way we conduct our lives.

As long as we refuse to give ourselves up as living sacrifices to God, as long as we hold ourselves back, we will no longer be shining “as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15).  Let us live in such a way that no one around us is interested in reading The Shack because they see in us something resembling the true God.  It is certainly our responsibility to refute false doctrine (Titus 1:9).  But above all, let us remember Jesus’ commandment:  “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

A paradox of preservation

2 Timothy 1:10-14
10 [God's own purpose and grace] now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14 By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

The tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is a paradox we see throughout scripture.  By a paradox, I simply mean something that appears self-contradictory, absurd, and false, but is in fact true.  When we approach this passage with the question, “Who will guard what God has entrusted to us?” — then we arrive at a paradox.  For we see that Jesus Christ, the one “who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (v. 10) holds all the power necessary to guard this deposit.  We trust that he will protect and preserve the ministry to which each of us has been appointed (v. 11).  Paul had confidence that the churches he planted would continue strong even after his death.  He knew that they were under the care of Jesus Christ, who knows best how to care for his own.

Yet we ourselves are responsible to guard this deposit (v. 14).  We can’t simply “let go and let God.”  This requires effort on our part — effort drawing on the strength of “the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (v. 14).  How do we guard our ministries?  We “follow the pattern of the sound words” (v. 13) that we have been taught.  We are not called to be doctrinal innovators but rather doctrinal preservers.  By guarding the truth of Jesus Christ, we guard the source of our life.  We are called to do this “in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (v. 13).  We guard not with fierce words, impatience, and scorn, but in faith that Christ will preserve his own and in the love that he has for them.

It is critical to protect other believers from false teaching.  The apostle James wrote, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).  How thrilled we should be to stand on guard for one another’s soul!  May God grant us this love and an unshakable trust that he will never forsake his children!

Team sanctification

Colossians 1:28-2:4
28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. 2:1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

Sanctification is a group effort.  It takes a lot of work, and the energy for this work comes from Jesus Christ (1:29).  Without the wisdom, strength, love, and understanding of Christ, it’s a lost cause.  But with these, we can work to build up the church by our involvement in one another’s lives.  Just as Paul and the apostles warned (admonished) and taught the churches through the proclamation of the gospel (1:28), so our church leaders admonish and teach us.  We are called to “be knit together in love” (2:2) so that we may be encouraged to understand and know Christ, our priceless treasure.  We need to watch one another’s doctrine closely so that no one is deluded “with plausible arguments” (2:4).  False teaching rarely announces its presence; rather, it is much more subtle.  It requires discernment to pick out.  This is one of many reasons why we need the church—to call each other out on our wayward doctrine that will lead us to an unfruitful life.

I’m grateful for the many times in which pastors and friends have corrected my wrong patterns of thinking.  Our theology drives our delight in God and our attitude toward life.  I know I have a long way to go, but I’m thankful that even now, God is using me to help others just as he has used others in my own life.

Growing up with doctrine

Among several themes repeated over and over in 1 Timothy is the demand for good teaching and doctrine. Paul insists that Timothy guard the doctrines of the faith:

1 Timothy 4:6-7
6 If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness.

Note that Timothy’s training in godliness is identified with his training in “the words of the faith and of the good doctrine” (v. 6). Godliness requires good doctrine; anyone who rejects doctrine as important rejects godliness. We all adhere to some sort of doctrine; the question is whether it is sound doctrine or “irreverent, silly myths” (v. 7).

One chapter in Future Men, entitled “Doctrinal Meat,” has especially stood out to me. Douglas Wilson insists that boys should be taught doctrine, particularly the sovereignty of God, while growing up. Parents often refrain from this because they think their sons won’t be able to understand it, or it’s not that important, or the church will take care of it. Yet when college students grow in their faith, it’s because they’ve been challenged — for the first time — with doctrine. They’ve never thought through the gospel or the sovereignty of God or His glory. When they do, they grow in their faith like never before. This is what has happened to me, and it’ll continue to take place until the day I die and see God “face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

I feel like it’s not my place to criticize them, but really, parents and churches are doing their children a real disservice when they fail to challenge them spiritually. They’ve wasted many years of their children’s lives by putting their schooling or athletics or whatever else before their spiritual education. And then they wonder why their families have no spiritual heritage — why, even if their children become believers, they feel spiritually disconnected from their parents.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.