Chapter 1
In the first chapter of this book, one thing that immediately comes through are the rhetorical questions. A lot of rhetorical questions. In the first chapter alone, at first count there were 109 questions, none of which did the author offer any concrete answers for.
Questions aren’t negative. Questions are often useful and needed for gaining insight. But as a supposedly Christian book, several of these questions must raise some concerns. Here are but some of the questions posed in the first chapter:
“Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number “make it to a better place” and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish? Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God?
Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?
Is that what life is about? Going somewhere else?
Is your future in someone else’s hands? Is someone else’s eternity resting in your hands?
So do we have to forgive others, do the will of the Father, or “stand firm” to be accepted by God?
So demons believe, and washing Jesus’s feet with your tears gets your sins forgiven?”
There are many more, but these questions will suffice as we assess the truth claims of this book. However, assessing its truth claims may turn out to be impossible. With 109 rhetorical questions, one will struggle to find one objective truth claim made by the author. But a lack of straight forward claims does not mean that the author does not have an objective. There is clearly an objective to this book, and it’s dangerously hidden in the questions and in the suggestions.
It should be mentioned that almost every question the author poses should be answered with a yes or a no, but the author refuses to do so himself. He instead talks about “discussions” and “ongoing conversations.” While this sounds warm and fuzzy, these comments are the signature of a postmodern philosophy.
Postmodernism is the philosophical worldview whose foundation is the belief that there is no absolute truth. From the outset, it is clear that this worldview must be false, for if there assertion that there is no absolute truth is true absolutely, then the statement must be false and rejected. The only other alternative is that the statement is false, in which case you must also reject the belief. Postmodernism simply cannot be true.
Yet postmodernism has infiltrated some Christian churches, including the church that the author pastors. Instead of teaching truths, also known as doctrines, these churches teach nothing. Instead they ask around to see what everyone thinks and feels like regarding a certain passage in scripture. They ignore all offensive parts of the Bible and prefer to dwell on those that are emotionally satisfying. In fact, doctrines in general become offensive to these “emergent” churches. They will take core Christian values, those things that DEFINE what it means to be a Christian, and distort them through their ongoing conversation. Jesus said “No one comes to the father except through me.” That is as straight forward as it gets when it comes to Christian truth claims. But the platform of this book is to question this God spoken doctrine and start a “discussion” on what Jesus may have meant by that.
The author latches on to God’s attribute of Love and, in a very deranged way, convolutes it to mean something akin to being nice to everyone at all times. He completely ignores the multiple passages throughout the Bible that talk about God’s wrath, His justice, His goodness and His inability to coexist with sin. In fact, the author hardly makes mention of sin at all. Yet this was foundational to Jesus’ message when He came to earth. He commands us over and over to “repent” of our sins. We are subject to God’s wrath because of our sins, and it is the sacrifice of God in His Son Jesus Christ that allows an undeserving people to be washed from their sin.
The author asks how God could claim to be loving if He sends anyone to hell. A true Christian pastor would never ask such a question. A loving God necessarily disciplines His people just as loving parents will discipline their children. These are not hard theological concepts to grasp, but it is apparent that the author simply does not like what the Bible teaches. Hence, he continues to state Biblical doctrine as questions, innately implying that they might (or must) be false. Here are some doctrines questioned in the Chapter:
Hell, Fallen Nature, Sin, a just God, Assurance of Salvation, the Necessity of the Atonement for Salvation, The existence of “Lost people,” the existence or knowability of truth and the exclusive claims of Christ himself.
It is fine to question doctrines, so long as you are questioning them in an attempt to gain a better understanding. This does not seem to be the approach taken by the author in the first chapter. Rather, the intent of the chapter is to clearly tear down the fundamental truths of Christianity as being “unknowable.” To believe in them is good, but to claim you know for sure is tremendously arrogant. Therefore, such claims should be rejected as absolute and only entertained with all other contradictory ideas in a massive “conversation” where no conclusions or truths are ever reached.
The author claims that when a question is posed to us, we should not venture to have an answer, but rather another question. He cites the fact that Jesus responded to many questions with questions. The author seems to miss the point of these passages, however, in that Jesus and the questioning party would always understand the implications of Jesus questions. Jesus never asked anyone an open ended, non-conclusive question in all of Scripture. Yet this is what the author inexplicitly asserts.
The misuse of Scripture in the first chapter of this book is astounding. There is no exegetical knowledge or foresight to be seen whatsoever in their writing. Instead, the author uses an incredible mix of emotional rhetoric and leading questions that are obviously designed to sway the reader’s heart, but not their mind. And if you get a person emotional enough, you can get them to believe anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
