God is not the Witch! C.S. Lewis on the Atonement - Brad Jersak

No Christian thinker has synthesized the rich and varied imagery of the gospel into a single beautiful picture as did C.S. Lewis in his classic novella, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Through Lewis’ children’s fantasy, the New Testament themes— redemption and reconciliation, substitution and sacrifice, ransom and victory—coalesce into one of literature’s greatest plotlines. After all, it is a retelling of the greatest story ever told! 

Spoiler alert: I’ll summarize the epic climax shortly! 

Plot: Four English adolescents pass through a magical wardrobe into the strange world of Narnia, which has fallen into a deathly winter through the dark magic of the witch, Jadis. The witch succeeds in luring one of the boys, Edmund, into her evil clutches and deceives him into betraying his siblings. 

The great lion Aslan—Lewis’ Christ-figure— conceives a plan to rescue Edmund, but Jadis claims eye-for-an-eye justice to demand Edmund’s execution. Aslan secretly bargains for Edmund’s life by offering his own in exchange. Jadis is delighted; Aslan’s death will be her final victory. She and her minions tie Aslan to ‘the Stone Table’ (representing the law of condemnation). They shave his mane, mock and beat him, and finally, Jadis delivers the fatal wound with a stone knife. Wondrously, though the Witch can kill Aslan, she cannot take his life! Aslan is resurrected, the stone table is broken, Edmund is redeemed and the witch is destroyed! 

This is the Beautiful Gospel as C.S. Lewis imagined it. This famous fiction captures essential truths of Christ’s saving work as understood by the first apostles, evangelists and theologians. But the tale also underscores Lewis’s corrections to the most popular ‘atonement theory’ of his time (or ours). In his letters (to Bede Griffith), Lewis refers to the Anselmic theory (after Anselm of Canterbury) and says it “was not to be found either in the N.T. or most of the fathers.” In Mere Christianity he describes it:

“According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.”

Yet neither Lewis’ letters nor his non-fiction compare to the beauty and clarity of the gospel preached in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. 

To summarize: 

1. In the story, God appears only as Aslan—the Incarnation of God in Narnia. 

2. In the story, God never demands the death of Edmund or of Aslan. The witch does. God is not the witch. God is Aslan. 

3. In the story, the witch thinks she has cornered Aslan into satisfying the wrath of the Stone Table. But she has not and he does not. There is no law higher than Aslan. He willingly gives himself to save the victim, he breaks the Table and conquers both death and the witch. 

4. The Table is not God’s intractable wrath. It is the law of retribution and condemnation, broken by the deeper “magic” of sacrificial love. If the Stone Table can be broken, then it is not one of God’s eternal attributes. 

5. The witch could and surely did execute Aslan—but she was wrong to believe she could take his life. Like Christ, Aslan alone has the power to lay down his life, and therefore, the power to take it up again. She never took his life. He gave it, but not to her and not to death. He gave it for love to ransom everyone. The witch (like Satan and death) fell into her own trap and found Aslan to be very much alive. 

C.S. Lewis provides an important corrective to ideas of the Cross that mistakenly cast God into the witch’s role. But more importantly, he expresses the Beautiful Gospel in a way that even children can see it, even if some theologians cannot. 

Brad Jersak

CLICK HERE to go to the full magazine 

Q & A: "Salted with Fire" -- Hell, Self-amputation & Mark 9 - Brad Jersak

Question from a reader:

I have searched at least 7 articles about Hell from the www.ptm.org search button. There is absolutely no mention of Mark 9:42-50 in any of the articles. There are many scriptures that are addressed about Hell but not this particular one. I know it not to be true but it almost seems that it is intentionally ignored. I so look forward to your response.

Brad's response:

I can't remember if I've included a discussion on Mark 9 in my books 'Her Gates Will Never Be Shut' or 'A More Christlike God,' but it's certainly not a passage I would shy away from intentionally, since it is quite an amazing anomaly in the NT and well worthy of meditation. In fact, I did so for about a year before coming to the conclusions below:

Here is the text in blue, along with my own notes in black as I go. I will use the NASB since it is the most literal translation we have of the Greek and tends not to delete words that other translations though we unnecessary (but are critical to our understanding). 

⁴² “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.⁴³ If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell,

hell here is a translation of the Greek word, gehenna, (or from Hebrew, Valley of Hinnom) which was literally the valley south of Jerusalem that a long history of destructive fire: (a.) the prophets of Molech burned children there - 2 Chron 28:3, 33:6 (something God never even thought to do - Jer. 7:31); (b.) Josiah, whose name means 'fire of God' burned up all the altars and priests of Molech in that valley; (c.) when Jerusalem would be destroyed by both Babylon and later, Rome, the bodies would be dumped and burned in that fire because there were too many to bury; (d.) the valley would be a burning garbage dump as a memorial to Jerusalem's destruction; (e.)  gehenna would ultimately be restored into a garden holy to the Lord (Jer. 31:40).

God ... More than a "Christian"? - Brad Jersak

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” —Matthew 2:1-2 

I dropped by a Saturday morning garage sale today. It felt a bit creepy to me because one table was stacked high with occult books about Tarot cards, witches’ spells and astrology manuals. But it also reminded me of the Eastern-religion Magi who tracked down the Christ-child, using astrology. They didn’t merely use the star as GPS; somehow their divinations “told them” to look for the “king of the Jews.” We often call them “wise men,” but “magi” is actually the plural form of “magus”—i.e. magician or sorcerer (as in Acts 8:9-24). 

Holy Pagans 

In the Bible, we sometimes have interfaith run-ins with “holy pagans”—people of other faiths who are recognized as knowing God. And not just seekers; some were even priests, like Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 2, 18)—a priest of Midian revered in the Druze religion. Or Melchizedek, to whom Abram offers a tithe and the Epistle to the Hebrews recognizes as a “type” of Christ (Hebrews 2). From Job to Cornelius, we have God-fearing outsiders who nevertheless “had God’s ear.” The biblical tradition of holy pagans includes all those who sought and found God “beyond the box.” To state the obvious, none were Jewish or Christian when they first found God.

CLICK HERE to continue

"Gospel to the Nones" - Walter Brueggemann (with Brad Jersak)

Love Hopes: The Christian Bias - Brad Jersak

We all have a bias. The important thing is to recognize your bias and be able to defend or explain it. As a 'critical realist,' I spend a good deal of time and energy studying my biases - how they emerged, and how they influence my thinking. Rather than pretending to be perfectly objective, I confess that since my early days as a terrified infernalist, I have developed a strong preference for hope. I hope in the Good News that God’s love rectifies every injustice through forgiveness and reconciliation. The Gospel of hope that I can preach boldly is this:

God is not angry with you and never has been. He loves you with an everlasting love. Salvation is not a question of 'turn or burn.' We’re burning already, but we don’t have to be! Redemption! The life and death of Christ showed us how far God would go to extend forgiveness and invitation. His resurrection marked the death of death and the evacuation of Hades. My hope is in Christ, who rightfully earned his judgment seat and whose verdict is restorative justice, that is to say, mercy.

Hope. That is my bias, and I believe that Scripture, tradition, and experience confirm it. I want to explain and validate my hope in those contexts. This book will address the central problem of this 'heated' debate: not infernalism versus annihilationism versus universalism, but rather, authentic, biblical Christian hope vis-à-vis the error of dogmatic presumption (of any view). Hope presumes nothing but is rooted in a deeper confidence: the love and mercy of an openhearted and relentlessly kind God.

In short, I do not intend to convince readers of a particular theology of divine judgment. I hope, rather, to recall those relevant bits of Scripture, history, and tradition that ought to inform whatever view we take on this important topic. That said, the data summarized in my book, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut,  did lead me to four conclusions, which you may or may not share after all is said and done:

1. We cannot presume to know that all will be saved or that any will not be saved.2. The revelation of God in Christ includes real warnings about the possibility of damnation for some and also the real hope that redemption may extend to all.3. We not only dare hope and pray that God’s mercy would finally triumph over judgment; the love of God obligates us to such hope.4. Revelation 21–22 provides a test case for a biblical theology of eschatological hope.

To summarize my proposal, I quote Hermann-Josef Lauter.

'Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question, but love hopes all things (1 Cor 13: 7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from a Christian standpoint, not just permitted but commanded.'

Adapted from Brad Jersak, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut (Wipf & Stock).

Praying the Lord's Prayer in Violent Times - Brad Jersak

"RefuJesus" by David Hayward - http://nakedpastor.com/2015/11/refujesus/edpastor

You've noticed that we're living in very violent times. At home, abroad ... to the point of exhaustion, hopelessness and/or numbness. I see no reprieve in sight and every reason to expect further escalation. I find myself in daily need of prayers that guard my heart and mind from both despair and the vengeance fantasies of repressed rage. 

In that context, I have begun to pray the Lord's Prayer in a focused way on a daily basis with some new (to me) understanding about Christ's strategy in ordering the phrases in series as he does. Here is the part that seems super-relevant to us all right now:

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

This phrase calls me to forgive the sins of my enemies. And if we want to be a little technical, at least with the olde English, I think particularly of "trespassing sins." I remember wandering the gravel backroads of Manitoba, occasionally seeing signs that said, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" or less frequently, "Trespassers will be shot." 

'Trespasses' brings to mind the violation of boundaries by intruders. It can include everything from military incursions and occupation to a rash of local break-and-entries to the pettiness of feeling someone push my buttons with an intrusive word or look or social media posting. 'Trespasses' are about crossing boundaries. My boundaries. Jesus knows how trespassers threaten us, offend us, tempt us to react ...

"To the Merciful, You Show Yourself Merciful" - Brad Jersak

Jeff Turner is a blogger who leads 'Sound of Awakening Ministries' and the author of Saints in the Arms of a Happy God. His provocative zingers are also really quotable. When I saw the above summary online today, it triggered further thoughts for meditation. 

My first reaction to the above quote was, I suppose to the red faced, angry preacher, God shows himself (or more technically, allows himself to be seen) as a red face, angry preacher. I was reminded of these lines from Psalm 18. 

Psalm 18 (AKJV)

25 With the merciful you will show yourself merciful; with an upright man you will show yourself upright;

26 With the pure you will show yourself pure; and with the fraudulent you will show yourself devious.

Now for the psalmist, this was a matter of straight reward and retribution. In this Psalm, the Lord simply rewards us according to our righteousness (vs 20, 24), and punishes them according to their wickedness. But of course, this becomes problematic for the psalmist, the prophets and especially Job when the recompense appears to be arbitrary, disproportionate or unjustly reversed. Jeremiah, scratching his head and wiping his tears prays,  

You are always righteous, LORD, when I bring a case before you. Yet I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease? (Jer. 12:1 NIV)

W. Paul Young - Saying Yes or No to God (CWR Video)

The fall issue of CWR VIDEO is available HERE with thoughts by Paul Young, Brad Jersak, Greg Albrecht, Laura Robinson, Steve McVey, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, Brian Zahnd, Russ Hewett, Ashley Collishaw, Peter Helms, Ed Dunn and Dale Viljoen. For a sample, here's Paul Young.

Who is this 'Monster God' of (Im)Pure Will? - Brad Jersak

A Quick History of the 'Monster God'

The term "Monster God" became 'a thing' in 2014 through a series of sermons, debates and blogs, and while I can't be sure of its earliest use, one will note that its popular usage is typically tagged to Pastor Brian Zahnd (Word of Life Church and a CWR columnist). It came onto my radar through a sermon in early May entitled "Death of the Monster God," a lenten sermon on Luke 23:34, 46 (Jesus' prayers to the Father) asking, "What is God like?"    


The central point of the sermon is summarized by Brian in these words:

When we look at the death of Jesus on the cross in the light of the resurrection, we are looking at our salvation. But, what do we really see when we look at the cross? Are we looking at the appeasement of a monster god through barbaric child sacrifice? Or are we seeing something else? Is the cross vengeance or love? When Jesus says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," he is not asking God to act contrary to his nature. He is, in fact, revealing the very heart of God! The cross is not about the satisfaction of a vengeful monster god, the cross is the full revelation of a supremely merciful God! In Christ we discover a God who would rather die than kill his enemies. Once we know that God is revealed in Christ, we know what we are seeing when we look at the cross: The cross is where God in Christ absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness. The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Christ in order to forgive, but what God endures in Christ as he forgives.

Somehow, the sermon also led to the formal "Monster God Debate" between Brian Zahnd and Michael Brown at the Kansas City IHOP. He contrasted the cruciform God who became incarnate to save us from ourselves with the monster God from whom Jesus needed to save us. Much of this is clarified in his article on "How does 'Dying For Our Sins' Work?" and Rob Grayson's review of the debate.

Zach Hoag's Critique of the Monster God: 

1. God of Absolute Power

Minister and blogger Zach Hoag has picked up on this terminology and begun to apply it to contemporary issues in American Evangelicalism. I'm less interested in how he uses the Monster God motif in his critiques than in how he describes the Monster God's nature. Thus, I've mined two of his articles for clarity and definitions:

"I perceive you are a prophet!" Charisma to Cockburn, Shenanigans & Sages - B Jersak

Who are the Prophets?

It's a stubborn fact that American election cycles now feature an abundance of 'words from the Lord,' lobbying voters to support the candidate whom God has selected to serve as next president of the United States. The prophets tell us why God has “chosen them for such a time is this.” Readers might recall the grandiose oracles that foresaw the coronation of Sarah Palin as God's ‘Esther’ for the White House. It seems not to matter how often these pronouncements are proven wrong. Deniability only requires blaming the voters for their defiance against God's revealed will, and castigating the church for not praying hard enough or for being too 'lukewarm' to canvas for the candidate in question.

Track records notwithstanding, an appetite for these heavenly endorsements persists. In the record-breaking FOX News televised debate for GOP candidates, one call-in query "wanted to know if any of them had received a word from God ..." The candidates who were cornered for an answer deftly sidestepped the question to return to their talking points, but the moment came off as comically awkward, as if they'd been asked about chronic hemorrhoids or worse. Cringe-worthy.

We waited on the edge of our seats, hoping The Donald would have to respond, but alas, time ran out before that debacle. Still, he could have cited Charisma Magazine's 'Prophetic Insight' webpage, where Jeremiah Johnson treats us to this spiritual scoop:

Continue reading at: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2015/08/i-perceive-you-are-a-prophet-charisma-to-cockburn-shenanigans-sages-b-jersak.html

The "More Beautiful Gospel" Conference - Register Now

The Beautiful Gospel Conference​ official web page is complete and registration has just gone live. Join Brian Zahnd, Brad Jersak, Brian Doerksen and the Shiyr Poets

Oct. 1-3 in Abbotsford. 

Catch the early-bird price if you can. 

http://thebeautifulgospel.wix.com/thebeautifulgospel.

Gospel in Chairs (2015) - Brad Jersak

God, who are you? I want to know you! Brad Jersak

God who are you? I want to know you!

When we restrict our inquiry into the nature of God to the Bible, we are likely to find just the kind of God that we want to find. If we want a God of peace, he’s there. If we want a God of war, he’s there. If we want a compassionate God, he’s there. If we want a vindictive God, he’s there. If we want an egalitarian God, he’s there. If we want an ethnocentric God, he’s there. If we want a God demanding blood sacrifice, he’s there. If we want a God abolishing blood sacrifice, he’s there. Sometimes the Bible is like a Rorschach test— it reveals more about the reader than the eternal I AM.

The Bible is the inspired witness to the true Word of God who is Jesus. What the Bible does infallibly is take us on a journey that culminates with Christ— but it is Christ who fully reveals God. Or we can say it this way: The Scriptures ultimately bear witness to Christ, and Christ perfectly bears witness to God. While we are searching the Bible to find out what God is like, the Bible is all the while resolutely pointing us to Jesus. The revelation of God could not be contained in a book, but it could be contained in a human life— the life of Jesus Christ.

Anything we claim about God already belies our hidden desire to stand over, box in and control him. Language, words, doctrine, theology—aren’t these less than God? And yet don’t they frequently function to shrink the Creator of all into a manageable doctrinal specimen we can pin down and dissect? Isn’t it more convenient to cage him within our tiny, overconfident minds, where he must parrot our own lofty thoughts? The stubborn fact is that whatever we say about God or for God with great certitude is sifted through the thick veils of our religious traditions, cultural assumptions and personal interpretations.

Save me from every shadowy conception of God that I’ve created and worshiped, deceiving myself into believing it is the one true God! So I say no—if there is a God, I don’t just get to fashion him from the clay of my own image. I need him to reveal himself in a way that can be known.

God, who are you? I want to know you but my vision is so distorted, my mind is so small, my heart is so constricted. How could you live in such tiny boxes? Ah, but you don’t! I do! Rescue me from the prison of my puny understanding! Turn on the lights so I can catch a glimpse of the same Eternal Love that Jesus revealed. Give me the gift of Christlike vision that burns through the fog that blinds me to pure Goodness. Lord, let it be!

Brad Jersak- excerpt from A More Christlike God

Why I Don't Think I'll Claim To Be Christian - Brad Jersak

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

(Matthew 7:21-23)

2 It is required in stewards that one be found faithful. ³ But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. ⁴ For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. ⁵ Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. 

(1 Cor. 4:2-5) 

In 1972, I came to belief in Christ and consciously prayed for God's saving grace to come into my life. I was baptized on the confession of my faith in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Later, was welcomed into membership at Calvary Baptist Church. After transferring membership to Bethel Mennonite Church, I also went on staff and was ordained as a Reverend by the Conference of Mennonites in BC. My ordination was also recognized by the Christian Ministers Association after we planted Fresh Wind Christian Fellowship. Many moons later, I was chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church (again, upon confession of the Symbol of Faith) and later, was ordained as a Reader.

None of this allows me to claim to be Christian. Many who say, 'Lord, Lord' will prove to be strangers before Christ on the Last Day.

During the course of these assorted ministries, I prophesied in Jesus' name, cast out demons (or at least thought I did) in Jesus' name, even did the odd wonder in Jesus' name. Taught in his name, evangelized in his name, pastored in his name, counseled in his name, prayed in his name.

None of this allows me to claim to be Christian. Many who serve 'In his name,' will prove to be strangers before Christ on the Last Day.

The stubborn fact is that it not by our claims, but by our fruit that Jesus recognizes living faith. Nor will the fruit he seeks be our spiritual pedigree or our relentless religiosity. It seems that he will actually be looking for the fruit of the grace of the Holy Spirit in our lives, whatever that means.

Claiming the fruit does not allow me to claim to be Christian. Only bearing the fruit will count on the last day. 

The fruit of the grace of God's spirit cannot grow from the flesh of self-righteousness, striving or zeal. It can only grow on branches grafted to the Tree of Life, the Cross of Christ. Paul sure knew this:

³ For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, ⁴ though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: ⁵ circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; ⁶ concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. ⁷ But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.

(Philipiians 3:3-7)

I have never renounced my prayers of faith for grace; I have never renounced my baptism or confession or ordination; I have never renounced my faith in the good news of Christ. I still love Jesus, preach the good news and occasionally find the grace to surrender to his transforming love. 

None of this allows me to claim to be Christian. 

While Christ warns us not to disown him before men, let he disown us before his Father (Matt. 10:33) ... and this I will not do. As my friend Sean says, 'neither brashly presuming nor cowardly denying.' For me, that's a given. Giving up my self-claims are not a repudiation of my Christ-claims. Not identifying as a Christian is not the same as dissociating from Christ before men. The latter does matter.

If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you! - Randal Rauser

J.I. Packer has long distinguished himself as among the foremost evangelical critics of universalism. At the same time, he also made the following admission:

“No evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you!”

Packer’s certainly right about that. And yet, the disturbing truth is that many conservative Christians don’t want universalism to be true. I wrote about this problem four years ago in “The very worst reason to reject universalism.” In that article I noted that acerbic Christian apologist Ray Comfort repudiated universalism because it entailed that Nazis and pedophiles could end up in heaven. Yes, it does mean that. It also means that acerbic Christian apologists like Ray Comfort can end up in heaven. And even a few tentative apologists too!

I was reminded of this topic the other day while reading the following passage in Brad Jersak’s A More Christlike God:

“According to Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, moral outrage at others’ sin is often a confession of one’s own deeply repressed cravings. Do we ourselves need hell to keep our envy of sinners at bay? One pastor in my city even confessed that without the threat of hell, he would not be a Christian.” (20)

The notion that people are most vociferous against the sins with which they most struggle is so familiar as to be called a cliché. The pastor who regularly rails against “demon alcohol” or “lust” invites suspicions as to his own struggles.

What I find especially haunting is the suggestion that we might need hell to reassure us of our own life decisions to eschew certain temptations (and, dare we say it, our inherent worth and superior moral standing over the “sinners”).

Two of Jesus’ parables speak powerfully to this. 

CLICK HERE to continue reading

“Infallibility” in the Early Church - Brad Jersak

The ‘Infallibility’ of Scripture

Current attempts to understand the ‘violence texts’ of the Old Testament in light of the nonviolent revelation of God in Christ have been renewed with vigor in recent years.

Eric Siebert (Disturbing Divine Behavior), David Lamb (God Behaving Badly), Thomas Römer (Dark God), Paul Copan (Is God a Moral Monster?), Eryl Davies (The Immoral Bible), Michael Hardin (Jesus Driven Life) and Peter Enns (The Bible Tells Me So) are among the host of scholars who address the problem of the so-called ‘toxic texts’ of the Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to read them in the light of the Father revealed by Christ. 

More recently, Derek Flood’s must-read book, Disarming Scripture, caught the attention of Gregory Boyd (who is also writing an epic tome on the topic). While I know these two teachers have much in common, Boyd took Flood to task on the question of “biblical infallibility.” He began a four-part blog critique, beginning with a post entitled “Must We Deny Biblical Infallibility to ‘Disarm’ Scripture?” Derek blogged a series of responses, beginning with his post, “A Reply to Greg Boyd’s Critique of Disarming Scripture.”

For my part, I would like to affirm both men for modeling a gracious exchange between Christians on a matter of striking disagreement. If only this were the common standard: charitable dissent without hostility. Well done, I say.

Second, to distill the exchange down to its essential feature, Boyd argued for ‘biblical infallibility’ and Flood argued against it … however, Flood rightly noted how they did not necessarily agree even on the definition of ‘infallibility,’ which could reasonably cause them to argue past each other. While the tension is in part a verbal one, I think they would both say it goes deeper than that. That is, even if they could come to a mutually shared definition of ‘infallible,’ they would still disagree as to whether the word should or should not be used as a descriptor for the Bible.

Third, this leads to a particular question that does not solve the problem, but may speak to its background. Namely, what did the early church teach about infallibility? I’ll pose the question as Derek asked it.  

Q: Would you say that the church fathers taught the "infallibility" of Scripture?

"Would you say that the early church fathers taught the "infallibility" of Scripture? This strikes me as wrong. Inspiration yes, but infallibility? Do you know of any articles or books that deal with this (whether infallibility was something taught by the early church)? What does the Orthodox Church say?" 

My response (expanded for this article):

Based in my late-coming knowledge and brief surveys of the early church fathers, 'infallible' was indeed a word they employed, but not with reference to Scripture. The 'infallibility of the Bible,' as best as I can tell, is a specifically Protestant notion, introduced as a point of leverage (under sola scriptura) in order to cut itself loose from the authority of the Vatican and from church tradition. An infallible Bible then becomes the final authority for faith and practice. Unfortunately, ‘an infallible Bible’ is often a code for ‘my interpretation of the Bible,’ and the schisms go viral.

On the other hand, while the early Greek fathers definitely speak of the 'inspiration of Scripture' they reserve the word 'infallible' for the Holy Spirit and the Spirit’s guidance as they preserved the gospel (the ‘canon of faith’ or ‘faith once delivered’ – Jude 3) and summarized it in the creeds as they convened the early councils. That is, only God himself is the infallible Subject. 

CLICK HERE to continue reading

'Runaway Radical' - Interview with Amy Hollingsworth and Jonathan Hollingsworth - with Brad Jersak

Interview with Amy Hollingsworth and Jonathan Hollingsworth on Runaway Radical, Spiritual Abuse and Hardcore Christianity – with Brad Jersak

Brad: When you sent me an advanced copy of Runaway Radical, perhaps you remember me politely telling you I’d add it to my to-read stack. Before filing it in my inbox, I made the ‘mistake’ of reading page 1. I wasn’t able to put it down after that ... I read until I had to break for sleep, then finished the book before getting out of bed again! Jonathan’s journey totally captured me. Would you please give our readers a brief summary of this book that so captivated me?

Amy: I do remember your telling me that you were a “bit buried” and then a few hours later you sent a note saying you made the mistake of thinking you could read just a little bit. Your quick and vigorous response really bolstered me because you were the very first person ever to read Runaway Radical. And the fact that your response has been replicated many times over is more than we could have imagined when we decided to tell our story.

The best and briefest summary of Runaway Radical I’ve heard is this: It’s a young man’s journey from idealism to realism to fatalism to faith.

The catalyst for the book was desperation. It was a mother’s desperate attempt to woo her son back into the land of the living. When Jonathan returned from what was supposed to be a year of missionary service in West Africa— and it was more a rescue than a return—I thought I would be so relieved and happy that I would drop the issues that forced him home. But instead the injustice kept me awake at night. I started writing a letter to the leaders of Jonathan’s church outlining the abuse he had endured from the mission agency in West Africa. My husband, Jonathan, and I met with the church leaders and their answer to Jonathan’s abuse was to swear him to secrecy. That blow was worse than the first. When I saw the toll silence was taking on Jonathan, not just on his faith but on his mental and physical well-being, I became desperate. To me the only antidote to the destructiveness of silence is to tell the truth. So I knocked on his bedroom door one afternoon (he was sleeping through most days back then) and said, “Let’s tell your story.” We started jotting down notes on a legal pad that day. 

Brad: One facet of the book was your exposure of and insight into real-life spiritual abuse in the Evangelical world. We often think of ‘religious slavery’ in terms of crusty old forms and rituals that have been gutted of meaning—wool pants on oak pews reciting who knows what in King James monotone. Yet Runaway Radical showed us how spiritual abuse can flourish in the vision-driven ministries of evangelistic movements and foreign missions. Am I being fair? What were the marks of spiritual abuse that you saw in that context? I mean, how did it work? And what were the effects?

Jonathan: I think religious slavery is especially prevalent in cause-oriented ministries. Any group that’s hell-bent on carrying out a mission at all costs runs the risk of using and abusing others to accomplish their goals. I’ve talked with so many missionaries who look back on their experience on the field and feel exploited, manipulated, and taken advantage of by those in authority over them.

In my case, I was being scammed before I even left home. After I had raised the necessary funds to live in Africa for a year, the leader of the mission organization nearly doubled my fundraising goal, claiming he had miscalculated my living expenses. This was my first indication that something was off, but I did as I was told.

Once I arrived in Africa, I discovered that a major project advertised on the organization’s website (a fully-functional kitchen addition to the local orphanage) was unusable. Many of the other projects I had been assigned either fell through or were nonexistent, yet I was forbidden from seeking out other opportunities to help in the community. In fact, every aspect of my life was under their control—what I did, who I spent my time with, and even what I said on my personal blog.
When I finally told them I’d had enough, the leader of the organization told me I was being “prideful” and I needed to think about all the people I would be letting down if I left. He booked a flight that wouldn’t leave for another month and demanded that I write a series of blog posts praising the ministry and soliciting donations in the meantime. In the end, it took third-party intervention to get me home, and the mission organization pocketed every last penny I had raised.

CLICK HERE to continue reading Runaway Radical: Interview with Brad Jersak

More Christlike God Q & A: "Doesn't Isaiah 59:2 clearly state that our sins separate us from God?" - Brad Jersak

QUESTION:

Dear Brad,

I have had the privilege of hearing your teaching both at the WTC residential and at my own church. I also love your book, Stricken by God?  In it you dispel the idea that God cannot look on sin and I totally agree with your reasoning.  But although you mention Habakkuk 1:13, you do not comment on Isaiah 59:2. It seems to be clearly stating that the people's sin had separated them from God and hidden his face from them. I would be most interested in your interpretation of this verse, if you have the time to answer.
Thank you.

May God bless you, 

Sarah S.

RESPONSE:

What a great question, Sarah!

Yes, Isaiah 59 is a key text in the discussion, and our Old Testament scholar, Dr. Matt Lynch, has been fantastic in walking me through the chapter details. I cover it briefly in my new book, A More Christlike God. Before I get to that, it's helpful to read the verse in question super-carefully. 

“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2).

What separates us from God? God? No. Our iniquities. 

What hides his face from us? God? No. Our sins. 

This is the all-essential distinction: in our rebellion and shame, like Adam and Eve, two things are at play in obscuring his face: 1. "Our" [we do it] and 2. "Sins" [what we do]. 

This is reminiscent of Adam and Eve, trying to hide their nakedness in the Garden. In fact, they were hiding God from themselves but they were not hidden from God at all ... unless we think God literally didn't know where they were. It's a bit like covering our eyes and believing the sun is no longer shining.    

Back to Isaiah: In turning from God's loving care, we reject his blessings, so that 'he does not hear us' ... Of course, we know God actually hears everything, because he is God, so this last phrase is poetic (indeed, the whole chapter is a Hebrew poem) ... To say God "doesn't hear us" is a metaphor for the real experience of not perceiving or receiving God's promised blessings. And why don't we? Because God is angry and has turned away? Not at all! Rather, because in our sin, we have turned away from God and rebuffed the blessings that come with knowing him. 

At the same time, while we have turned from God, God has not turned from us. While our sins hide his face from us we are not hidden from him at all. That is, our sin obscures the joy of his presence, even though God may still feel very 'in our face' ... as he is in Isaiah 59! 

And what does God do? 

God sees, and in Isaiah 59, Isaiah says that God is displeased with the whole situation ... the injustice, the alienation, and the interrupted flow of blessings to God's children. But far from concluding that God rejects or abandons us, we must keep reading ... God springs into action. God initiates a saving act whereby he rolls up his sleeves and comes to us himself through his Messianic Redeemer. Those who turn to God will find that he was already for them and toward them. In other words, our repentance does not cause God to come, but rather, God's grace precedes and even generates our repentance. This is how the New Covenant (announced in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and elsewhere) works. Unilateral grace to self-alienated children. And his New Covenant, according to Isaiah, also assures us that God's Spirit will not depart ... ever. 

Here's how I address it in A More Christlike God:

Some may have been thrown off by a passage in Isaiah, which says, “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2). 

Well, that’s quite damning, isn’t it! Pretty clear, right? The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it, right? If only we would keep reading! The chapter as a whole goes like this—God sees the injustice in the land and how that injustice has broken the flow of blessing and favor he intends. He grieves the situation. So what does God do? 

15 The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice.  

16 He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him. 

Who or what is this arm of the Lord? Keep reading: 

20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the Lord. 

21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.

  

In other words, when God sees individuals or nations wallowing in sin—personal or social, far from turning his back on us and alienating us, he rolls up his sleeves and stretches out his hand to save. In this case the ‘hand’ is a metaphor for the Messiah, a prophetic pronouncement of God’s remedy, and a promise that he will not abandon us.