A Call Back to God by a President of the U.S.A.

I'm almost a day late in posting this (unless you are actually reading this on Thursday), but I just read this quote and felt I needed to share it with my readers. These words are especially significant in light of the words of the Prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18:7-10). Oh, how I wish that every American elementary and secondary student had had these words read to them on this day. The quote is found in the Missional Church Network web site (click on title of this post):

“We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.”

– President Abraham Lincoln, 1863

In these tumultuous times I long for leadership that will call this country back to God. A President and a Congress that will recognize the indebtedness that we as a People have to our Divine Creator, and how desperate we need his mercy and grace in the days ahead.

Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

Prison Tennis - Video - - ESPN

Prison Tennis - Video - - ESPN

This gives a twist to Jesus' words, "I was in prison, and you came to Me" (Matthew 25:36). I suppose one can share God's love and forgiveness through many avenues. This is just one form of prison visitation I had not seen before. I pray that some among the ones playing with inmates will share Christ, the only One who will not only "reform" but will "transform" all prisoners into free men and women.
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 6: Concluding Thoughts

There is much more that can be discussed in this brief consideration of The Shack. One of the things I want to touch on is the negative response the book has received from Christian leaders. For example, Albert Mohler, called The Shack "deeply subversive," "scripturally incorrect" and downright "dangerous." (www.usatoday.com, 5/29/2008). One of today’s young and influential Christian leaders, Mark Driscoll, says, "If you haven't read The Shack, don't!" (www.usatoday.com, 5/29/2008). While I understand, and agree with some of the criticism thrust against this book, I have to disagree with the rejection that many have expressed about reading and using the book because I consider it a legitimate tool for engaging folks spiritually.

According to USATODAY, The Shack is the author’s metaphor for an ugly, dark place hidden so deeply within him that it seemed beyond God's healing reach (www.usatoday.com). Yet, we know from personal experience, that nothing in our lives is too deep, so far, that God can’t reach. The book demonstrates a God of compassion and mercy who is moving among humanity to bring her back to relationship with Him. Sentences such as “Mack, I’m sorry,” speaking of Missy’s death. Or, “That’s why you’re here, Mack. I want to heal the wound that has grown inside of you, and between us” (90, 91) are reflective of the tenderness displayed by the Persons of the Trinity toward Mack and each one who draws near to God.

As a theodicy I believe The Shack provides helpful answers (although not complete) to those who are trying to make sense of God and suffering. Papa reminds Mack that “there are millions of reasons to allow pain and hurt and suffering rather than to eradicate them.” And, “But your choices are also not stronger than my purposes, and I will use every choice you make for the ultimate good and the most loving outcome” (124). Of course, God’s glory and worship as the purpose of all things, and for the well being of humanity, is missing from the discussion. But again, this is not a theological, and less, exhaustive treatise of God’s purposes and ways.

I understand what Mohler, Driscoll, and others, are saying. For example, some will probably object that man’s sin and responsibility to God was not clearly developed in The Shack, and they’re right. Little is also said about the final authority of Scripture to communicate to man God’s plans and thoughts. However, Young does amply make clear that man’s problems are largely the result of his desire to live independently of God and of one another because of fear (90). And Young does present Jesus in a unique light in his role as Savior of humanity (although this could be clearer). He continually draws upon the significance of Jesus’ death as the basis for reconciliation and even hints at what one must do to be right with God or have a true relationship with him (229).

Although I would embrace reading and discussing The Shack, I don’t think it is necessary to go out and buy a copy. Those who do read it need to keep in mind the limitations of the book, the heretical tendencies, the lack of centering on the Bible and Jesus alone for salvation which the book displays (some say subversively undermining cardinal Christian truths).

At the same time, we must remember that this is theological fiction and that it can constructively be used as an excellent point of entry for a culture that is searching, analyzing, evaluating, accepting and rejecting. John exhorted his readers to “Test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). If we apply this principle carefully we can safely use cultural tools to flame discussions centering on God and Jesus, and hopefully lead seekers not only to our Redeemer and true friend, but to the “King of kings, and Lord of Lords.”
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 5: Confessions, Forgiveness & Reconciliation

One of the most moving sections of The Shack is the healing that begins to take place in the heart of Mack. His time with the Trinity and the experiences he lived during that short weekend had a cleansing and restorative effect on him. God gave Mack the opportunity to sit as judge over the world. In his grief over the guilt of humanity, including that of his children who would need to pay for their sins, Mack cries out, “Could I go instead? . . . I’ll go in their place. . . .Please let me go for my children, please, I would be happy to . . . Please, I am begging you. . .” (164). Sarayu approvingly said to Mack, “Now you sound like Jesus. You have judged well, Mackenzie. I am so proud of you!” When Mack confessed his confusion about any judgment he had pronounced, Sarayu explained: “Oh, but you have. You have judged them worthy of love, even if it cost you everything. That is how Jesus loves” (164; See Hebrews 12:3).

But there was more. Mack’s lost and pain had made him stand as judge over God. He ultimately held God responsible for Missy’s death and could not embrace God without reservations. Sarayu explained: “It is you humans who have embraced evil and Papa has responded with goodness.” “Give up being his judge and know Papa for who he is. Then you will be able to embrace his love in the midst of your pain, instead of pushing him away with your self-centered perception of how you think the universe should be. Papa has crawled inside of your world to be with you, to be with Missy” (166; notice how Papa is now spoken of as a ‘he’; see Page 91).

As Mack began opening his heart to trust in Papa he received the unexpected gift of seeing Missy playing in what appeared to be heaven. The next few pages of the book are heart-warming, and a powerful picture of our future destiny with redeemed loved ones in eternity (166-179; read his description of the true nature of the Church on page 179).

But, the process of healing for Mack was far from over. He is confronted with two challenges necessary to finish his journey to wholeness and restoration: forgive his father, and forgive Missy’s murderer. Mack’s sentiments to Papa revealed his lingering deep hate and resentment regarding his little daughter’s murderer: “Redeem him? . . . I don’t want you to redeem him! I want you to hurt him, to punish him, to put him in hell” (228).

Papa reminded Mack of Jesus’ death and payment from the law’s demands for obedience and of his love for all men. “. . . he too is my son. I want to redeem him” (228). God’s love and compassion for even this serial killer was deep: “But I do” [love him] . . . “not for what he’s become, but for the broken child that has been twisted by his pain. I want to help you take on that nature that finds more power in love and forgiveness than hate” (229). Papa reminded Mack of the destruction that unforgiveness had caused in his own life (228-229).

Some have criticized Young on this emphasis of forgiving someone who is unrepentant. However, both Jesus, and Stephen forgave those who killed them even though they had not asked for forgiveness (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60; See also Eph. 4:32). The forgiveness talked about in The Shack was therapeutic; it would prevent Mack from carrying endlessly the hate that filled his heart for his dad and for Missy’s murderer. However, I do believe that we are exhorted to “forgive one another” our sins (Eph. 4:32), even when those we forgive have not acknowledged their own sins or repented. That doesn’t mean that we are not responsible to ask for forgiveness from God and those we hurt, but that the person we have offended can release us from our guilt against them. It opens the door for us to come back with a repented heart and to have the forgiveness applied to us in time. The potentiality of forgiveness, we could say, can be extended from our part to others, and will be applied and enjoyed in time by the repentant sinner.

Tomorrow I’ll finish this review with some concluding thoughts on The Shack and will discuss what other Christians are saying about the book.
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 4: The Trinity

Probably the most significant theological objection to The Shack is how the Trinity reveals itself to Mack. For example, the reasoning behind God revealing himself as a ‘she’ is Mack’s broken relationship with his human father. Papa tells Mack: “Hasn’t it always been a problem for you to embrace me as your father? And after what you’ve been through, you couldn’t very well handle a father right now, could you?” (92; See also, page 91). This inability to honor and love the person of God the Father is further pronounced as the story thickens, when Papa objects that many see Jesus as a figure of love and forgiveness while considering God as stern and inapproachable. Papa wondered how strange that man had made this distinction since Jesus came to show humanity – in his own love and compassion, and sacrifice – the very nature of God the Father (See John 14:7-9). The dialogue is insightful because in fact the Bible doesn’t allow for a dichotomy to exist among the God of the Old and New Testament. On both ends God is revealed as Holy, Righteous, Merciful, Gracious, Compassionate, and as Judge.

Although Young resists the idea of submission and hierarchy to describe the relationship among the Trinity, the Bible does teach that the Son and the Spirit submit in their unique roles (not in their attributes as God) to the Father. There is no Scripture, that I am aware of, that shows the Father submitting to the wishes or orders of the Son or the Spirit. This is simply the way the Bible reveals the Persons of the Trinity and we should adhere to God’s self revelation of his tripartite role (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:3; James 3:9, “Lord and Father”). Theologian Millard Erickson writes, “. . . the Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father’s will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 338).

The Trinity is a doctrine of inference, but one that can be well established by the evidence of Scripture. Each Person of the Godhead is distinct from the other, yet each is very God, or of the same eternal essence and attributes. God is Spirit, as well as a Person (John 4:24: See 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15-16). Furthermore, although the Bible at times does associate God’s actions with motherly characteristics to emphasize his tenderness and compassion, akin mostly to motherly behavior (e.g., Isaiah 66:12-13), Jesus gave us the example of how to refer to God when he prayed, “Our Father in heaven. . .” (Matthew 6:9ff.).

The Son is eternal (see Isaiah 9:6) and is the only Person of the Trinity that has a human body. Even in Old Testament times, a Christophany is believed by some to be the manifestation of Christ in human form before his incarnation in history. The Holy Spirit has never appeared with a human body, always takes a supportive role to the Son, and works in the heart of people to convict them of their need for God (John 16:8-11; See metaphor of the garden, page 132).

The Shack absolutely gets it wrong when, for example, it says: “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human” (98). First, taken alone, Young here comes close to the heresy of modalism, or the teaching that the one Person of God takes a different manifestation or role at certain times in history (See Sabellius). Modalists teach that the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical-they are successive revelations of the same person.” (Erickson, 334). Again, the only Person of the Triune God to take on human flesh and to limit himself was the Second, the Son (See John 1:14).

To his credit, Young does get it right when he goes on to speak about Jesus as “fully God,” yet also “fully human” (98). He also gets it right when he asserts about Jesus that “although he is fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being” (98). Jesus continually reiterated that he couldn’t do anything unless the Father directed him (See John 5:20). As our Second Adam he lived a perfect life, not out of His deity, but out of his humanity in complete submission to the Father’s will (See Hebrews 4:15). This is why he could die on our behalf as a perfect substitute.

Sarayu gets it partially right when talking about the reason for the death of Christ. She tells Mack: “For love. He chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love. Would you instead prefer he’d chosen justice for everyone?” (165). It is true that if God had only applied his justice to humanity, without giving us his Son, we would be without hope. In his great love, however, he sent his Son as our sin payment. Both God’s justice and God’s mercy kissed at the point of Calvary’s Cross. The cross demonstrates both God’s justice – without the shedding of blood there can’t be remission of sin – and God’s mercy, the Son of God, the Holy One dying for unholy men and women.

Although The Shack reveals the Persons of the Trinity in an unbiblical ‘form’, it does a good job of presenting the fellowship, the love, and the purposes of each Person in a lively (remember fictional/imagined) manner (e.g., 120). On the other hand, Young gets the discussion on authority and submission wrong not only with the Trinity but also in other human relationships. Authority and submission is not about persons being ‘better’ than others, but are important in both the economy of the Trinity, in terms of their distinctive roles to which they submit to, and are also needed in human relationships as well. Although we could refer to God always as ‘Father,’ other names for God such as ‘Creator,” and ‘Holy One,’ should also be used when addressing him. However, the description of God as ‘mother’ is simply not a way in which the Bible has chosen to reveal his nature and role. The book’s depiction of God in ‘motherly’ form, nonetheless, could be used as an entry point to begin shedding light on the true revelation of God and his attributes.(To be continued on Friday.)
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 3: A Theodicy

“I’m not who you think I am, Mackenzie” (Papa, 95). The more I think through the book, and re-read it, the more I’m convinced that it is apparent that one of the main goals of the author in writing The Shack was to present a theodicy. A theodicy is an explanation or defense of God’s goodness in light of the reality of evil, pain and suffering. The book is a response for the reason God allows evil to go on in general, and in the life of Mack, in particular. Why had God allowed (caused) The Great Sadness in Mack’s life?

The questions surrounding a theodicy are many, but well known to most people. How can evil exist if God is good? If God is all-powerful then why does he allow senseless suffering to happen? If God is all-powerful, then why doesn’t he just control man’s actions and limit the pain? Why do I have to suffer? For Mack, his question was, “Why did my Missy have to die the way she did?” The book is full of arguments that ‘defend’ God in light of unexplainable senseless evil and pain (See for example, pages: 90, 91, 94, 95, 99, 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 146, 165, 166, 178, and 188).

On one occasion Mack asks Sarayu (the personification of the Holy Spirit), “What am I supposed to think? I just don’t understand how God could love Missy and let her go through that horror. She was innocent. She didn’t do anything to deserve that” (165). This in fact is a legitimate objection. Some of the writers in the Book of Psalms wrestle with how to deal with what we know about God’s goodness and power in light of his hesitancy to intervene against the evil that surrounds us (e.g., Psalm 10, 73; see also Habakkuk 1). To Mack’s next accusation about God not stopping Missy’s death, Sarayu says: “No, he didn’t. He doesn’t stop a lot of things that cause him pain. Your world is severely broken. You demanded your independence, and now you are angry with the one who love you enough to give it to you. Nothing is as it should be, as Papa desires it to be, and as it will be one day” (165).

The explanations the author provides for suffering constitute the better theological sections of the book. They affirm the reality of evil, a God who allows man to live out the actions which often come from the evil in his own heart, a God who suffers with his creation, who redeems the pain of those willing to give up their independence, and a God who one day will categorically do away with evil.

The Scriptures affirm both God’s goodness and his will to allow evil to continue, at least for now. Furthermore, although God hasn’t chosen to disclose the reasons behind most of our suffering he will often use pain to bring about the good. In another conversation with Mack Papa tells him: “Mack, just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me” (188).

This reminds me of the very subject of evil that Jesus’ disciples brought up concerning a particular man born blind. Had the blind man sinned to deserve his fate, or did his parents cause his suffering? Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3). Of course, space here doesn’t allow us to ponder more deeply the theology of suffering which is much broader than this statement given by Jesus.

It is important to recognize that the sections on the reasons for suffering are probably one of the best points of entry in The Shack. People quickly identify with Mack’s tragedy because everyone’s life is sprinkled with moments of evil and suffering. Sooner or later, tragedy or great suffering of some kind or some unexplained pain will come to each of our lives. This is the great given of life.

How can we use the book at this juncture? For example, a simple question to a seeker, or reader of the book who wishes to discuss it, could be: What do you think of how Papa explains the reasons for why God allows suffering? This is an open-ended question that will invite opinions and give you an opportunity to discuss what the Bible teaches. It would also be helpful to share your own sufferings in life, some of the doubts or unexplained questions you have, and how you have chosen (and been able) to continue believing in God and his goodness.

Tomorrow we will look at the Trinity and the matter of hierarchy in the Godhead.
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 2: A Theological Awakening

The Shack is having a powerful effect on readers. For example, here’s one comment left at the book’s web site: “This book has allowed me to finally deal with my emotions and forgive someone who has so desperately needed it. Amazingly, I had been in therapy with Christian counselors who could not reach me the way The Shack finally did. . . .Today, because I have finally been able to forgive, I feel so light and so happy. Now I want ‘Papa’ to work on my abuser and allow him to give up his grief too” (From the web site: www.theshackbook.com).

What is The Shack about? Mack lost his little daughter the last day of what had been a most delightful camping trip with his children. The question burning in his heart for the last three years had been, “How could God have allowed this atrocity to happen to a little girl?” As he returned to the shack Mack had the opportunity to ask God - ‘himself’ - about that day and about his unwillingness to save his daughter.

When he returned to the shack, and to his utter surprise, the ‘Trinity’ was waiting for him. However, what he found to be the true nature of God was nothing short of a paradigm shift in his theology. To his shock God the ‘mother’ and not the Father, welcomed him with open arms, as she revealed herself to him as a very pleasant, down to earth, African-American woman. Jesus appeared to Mack as male, and most perfectly, as one from a Mid-Eastern Jewish descent. The Holy Spirit manifested itself as a short inquisitive and always helpful Asian woman with a tender heart and who usually stayed in the background. Together, the Trinity helped Mack through a journey of soul searching, forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing.

During the weekend each person of the Trinity took turns to spend time alone with Mack, probing him with questions, answering his doubts, and patiently allowing their love to work its way into Mack’s heart. Each of the cycle of conversations that each person of the Trinity had with Mack helped him understand why God allows things to happen, and offered deep conversations and opportunities for reflection regarding God’s nature, love, and purposes. The Three Persons of the Trinity also talked among themselves and displayed deep affection, love, and acceptance for each other which helped Mack understand the real meaning of relationships and fellowship.

Along with a twisted presentation of the Trinity, The Shack also briefly touches on how God values the religions of the world as means of drawing people to himself (184). The book comes short of presenting a full blown affirmation of universalism but does provide the hope that through the search of man for God through their own understanding of the Divine they too will have an opportunity to find forgiveness through Christ. (Among scholars today there are at least 5 views which debate the question of “Who can be saved”? in light of today’s world religions.)

The weekend at The Shack produced a roller coaster of emotions that continually filled Mack’s heart. At the end, however, Mack makes peace with God, as well as with his abusive father, and his daughter’s murderer.

What does The Shack teach about evil in the world? What does it teach about the Trinity? What does it say about sin and salvation? What does it say about Jesus? And why has the book’s message touched thousands of people? These are the questions we’ll begin to address tomorrow.
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

The Shack - Day 1: The Story

Two weeks ago I visited that most favorite of all doctors, the dentist. While sitting in my somewhat comfortable chair getting ready for my new crown, the assistant noticed I was reading a book. After sharing a little about my reading topic she volunteered that she too was reading a book that was fascinating her called, “La Cabaña”. That’s Spanish for “The Shack”. For the next few minutes we talked briefly about why the book had impressed her so much, and how she was beginning to understand the reasons behind suffering. I pressed her a little about her ideas about God, and gently shared what the Bible says about such things as the Trinity and God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. That lead to more conversations about spiritual matters until she said, “Now, open your mouth.”

The Shack has sold over 5 million copies worldwide. It will soon be translated into more than 30 languages around the world, and a movie is sure to come out in the near future. The web site for the book recently announced that “The Shack continues at #1 on the NY Times Best Seller list for its 29th straight week!” If you haven’t read the book you probably are wondering what’s the attraction all about. And if you listen to some preachers and teachers you probably have been warned to stay away from it. This week I will be blogging on some of the teachings found in The Shack, my feelings about the book and what approach I take regarding it.

The Storyline

First, let me say that the book, although I felt at times was awkwardly written, especially at the beginning (and too embellished at times), is a grabbing, emotionally-gut wrenching, and heart throbbing story. Second, since it is a work of fiction, and not a theological treatise, one familiar with the Bible and with some basic theological understanding can read it and quickly pinpoint some of the heresies as well as implications of the author’s presentation of God, the Bible, and other things theological. Third, whether or not you choose to read The Shack it would be helpful to familiarize yourself with the basic storyline and know how to respond to some of the less than orthodox theology it presents.

The author, W. Paul Young states that “The Shack is a metaphor for the ‘Place we get hurt and stuck.’” “It’s the facade, the inside no one knows.” The story is about a grown man, Mack, who lives stuck in his world of secrets, mistrust, and resentment. Mack grew up with his father, a drunkard pastor, who abused his mother as well as him. At the age of 13 he left home and never returned. This lack of relationship with his father would be significant for something he would later discover at The Shack.

Mack’s life is one blessed with a wife who has a strong relationship with God, who she calls ‘Papa’. He has three lovely children, of which the youngest, Missy, is a wonderful precocious, six-year old. Mack’s world comes to an almost halt after a gruesome event takes place at the end of a camping trip with his three children. His life after this event takes a downturn of which he almost never comes out of, if not for a note that he receives three years later from someone called . . . ‘Papa’. Thinking that this was either a cruel joke, or possibly (but how could it be?) a note really left by God, Mack decides to go back to the shack where he had lost his most treasured possession, his little Missy.

The metaphor of ‘the shack’ has helped many readers deal with the pain in their own lives. A simple reading of the postings at the book’s web site (www.theshack.com) illustrates this thousands of times over. At The Shack Mack has what could be called a supernatural enlightenment experience that helps him put his life in proper perspective and helps him make peace with past hurts and relationships. The healing journey Mack travels has probably been the greatest appeal of most readers of the book. (To be continued tomorrow.)
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

Your Life Sentence for 2009 & Beyond (Continued)

How much thought have you given to how you want to invest this year in making a difference in others? Perhaps the economic uncertainties and the worry of what will happen this year in our country has not allowed you to focus much on how your life can be used by God to impact others.

I want to encourage you to take time to settle your heart before God and pray. Then, after praying, take pen and paper and write down a few thoughts, a few words that describe what you understand your life sentence to be (see yesterday’s blogspot). Anatole France’s words (quoted in Leadership Gold by John Maxwell) is significant: “The average man does not know what to do with his life, yet wants another one which will last forever” (246). The truth of the matter is that we have only one life to live. This is why thinking through writing a “life sentence” of how you view your life, your purpose, your gift back to God and humanity, can help you in impacting the next generation and leaving a lasting legacy. Think of this: writing and living out my “life sentence” will help me ‘be’ now those things which I want to leave others later.

I’ve thought a lot about my Life Sentence. Although my tasks in ministry and the opportunities to be involved in God’s work varies from time to time, I believe that my Life Sentence is based on my passion for knowing and teaching the Bible. Nothing brings me greater joy (and excitement) than to study and understand more clearly God’s revelation and to lead people to read, study and respond to God as a result of understanding God’s Word. Therefore, the following is my life sentence as I understand it today: To Love and serve God by helping others understand, love, and live out the Bible’s teachings for God’s glory and purposes. The chapters in my life thus far have often been tied to the study and teaching of God's Word, and future chapters of how my teaching ministry will impact others are being written now.

What is your life sentence? What legacy will you leave behind? Grenville Kleiser in his book, Training for Power and Leadership, reminds us of the importance of our daily agenda or habits which in turn will help us develop the legacy that we will one day leave to others:

“Your life is like a book. The title page is your name, the preface your introductions to the world. The pages are a daily record of your efforts, trials, pleasures, discouragements, and achievements. Day by day your thoughts and acts are being inscribed in your book of life. Hour by hour, the record is being made that must stand for all time. Once the word ‘finis’ must be written, let it then be said of your book that it is a record of noble purpose, generous service, and work well-done” (quoted by Maxwell, 247).

Have you written a life sentence that describes the legacy you would like to leave? Don’t just let this year pass you by; be intentional about constructing a legacy that you will pass on to your children, family and world.

This year too will pass; but, so will your life. Live it well! Live it for God! Live it for Kingdom impact! Write your life sentence and begin fulfilling your future legacy today.
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, at peace and prosperous) in 2009

Writing a Life Sentence for 2009 & Beyond

It’s hard to believe that we are so soon at the beginning of a New Year. Where did the last twelve months go? I pray that in these uncertain times you will find deep fulfillment and peaceful existence as you live in harmony with God and find your soul’s rest in him.

Toward the end of last year our staff at church finished reading through Leadership Gold by John C. Maxwell. The last chapter in this book is entitled, “People Will Summarize Your Life in One Sentence – Pick it Now” (244). In it Maxwell talks about thinking through what kind of legacy we will leave behind. He defines “legacy” as follows: “A legacy is something we leave behind to the next generation. It can be possessions that we place in the hands of others. It can be principles we lived that carry on beyond our lives. It can also be people we have influenced whose lives are better as a result of knowing us” (244-245). In other words, thinking about the topic of a legacy is to think about how your life can have a lasting impact on future generations.

One of the ways we can effectively begin to think about what our legacy will be is tied to how we view our lives. For example we can ask, what is our purpose? Writing a “life sentence” can help us define and narrow our purpose in life. For the Apostle Paul his life sentence was to be a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. In Titus 1:1 he wrote, “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.” (For help on thinking through one’s purpose in life, see my blogspot: “Life on Target,” http://musingsencolor.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html.)

Sadly, a lot of us still don’t know what we’re supposed to be doing with our lives. As believers we understand that we are to glorify God and make his will in Christ be known to all. However, what is God's particular calling for you? What is your purpose? Long ago, renowned violinist, Yehudi Menuhin, stated, “I did know instinctively that to play was to be.” How about you? What were you created and gifted to do? What gives you the most passion and satisfaction in life? If given the opportunity, what would you do for the rest of your life? The answers to these questions will spell out your life sentence.

Have you sat down and written your life’s purpose? Have you written your life sentence? Have you asked yourself what legacy you want to leave to your children and family? How about to your church, community, or even world? (To be continued tomorrow).
Shalam Shalum (stay healthy, peaceful and prosperous) in 2009

The Gift of Living Missionally: Worship

As Christians we want to share the love of God with people. Not only do we do so because God commands us to share his message, but because we have personally experienced his love (we know God has forgiven us and has accepted us as his children), but also because the love of God for sinners has been poured into our hearts. That is, we truly love people and want them to experience God's forgiveness.

The Bible says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Serving others and sharing the gift of God's love with them is the mission of the Church. We call this missional living. However, missions will not last forever. Why? Because missions is not the goal, only the means to the goal: the worship of God. And this is the real reason for why we want to reach out to people and witness to God's love. We know that people will be better off when they come to know God personally and know his plans for their lives. This is why the gift of missions is worship: the glory, good pleasure, praise and worship of God by his creatures.

Helping sinners find the cross and understand the reason for Christ’s death and resurrection (missional living) is not the goal. The worship of God by sinners is. To serve the poor, feed the hungry, educate the masses, and heal humanity’s pain is not the goal. The worship of God by those who are set free is. The enjoyment of the good things in life and the good pleasures of life is not the goal of our existence. The worship of God’s children who acknowledge that all good gifts come from him is.

As we enjoy another Christmas season let us be on the lookout for the opportunities God will give us to share the gift of his Son with people. As we develop relationships with others and spend time with folks may they see in us the peace and hope that flood our hearts because we have placed our confidence in God. And may we be ready, and willing, to point people to the Savior so that they too might experience God's hope, peace and forgiveness. May we not tire of living missionally so that people can come to know God, worship Him, and become followers of Jesus.
Por Su Gracia y Poder

"Dad, that's not right": Parents, Kids do Listen to Us

A few days ago I was reminded again that our kids listen to us more than we realize. Our family was traveling to Miami and began singing a few Christian songs. One of the songs we sang was “Trust and Obey.” The refrain says: “Trust and obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” My daughter interjected, “Dad, that’s not right. We don’t have to obey in order to be saved.” She surprised me because she repeated what I’ve said many times. Now the song is talking about fellowship and service, and in this regards, it reflects proper doctrine. Our greatest joy in the Christian life is found in our fellowship with Christ as we live obediently to his words. That’s pure theology. But, she was also right in stating that we are not saved “because we obey.” Initial salvation, or being justified(=declared not guilty) is not the result of what we do but what has been done. I believe that salvation is by grace, not works. Salvation will produce some kind of work, in varying degrees, but obedience doesn’t save us, nor will it keep us saved.

Of course, I did take the opportunity to once again stress not only “grace” as a significant word for the Christian faith, but also “obedience,” which is how we honor God, show our love for God, show that we are disciples of Christ, and is a requirement for the rewards we will receive in return for our obedience in heaven at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). The book of Acts does say that “many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), but the mention of “disciples” that were increasing in numbers in the same verse leads us to affirm that what the phrase means is that priests were becoming convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and were now following him. Paul in Romans 1:5 speaks of “the obedience of faith.” This phrase has various possible meanings. Among the various alternatives given, the grammatical phrase can refer to 1) “the faith,” as in the content of the Christian message. Or, it can mean 2) the obedience which is the same as our faith and vice a versa. Others also believe it can mean 3)the obedience produced (even required) by our faith. Even if this last interpretation is accepted, obedience is the result of a saving relationship with Christ, and not the requirement for salvation, at least not initial salvation or justification.

Should we “trust and obey”? Yes, most definitely. We are saved and secure, however, because of the promise we have in Christ: “he who believes has eternal life” (John 6:47; see John 20:30-31; Galatians 2:16). To believe in Christ is to be convinced or have the inward certainty that what God says about his Son Jesus Christ to justify me and save me is true. I must personally come to faith in Christ to have my sins forgiven (See Acts 16:31).

Our children not only watch our behavior, but they also listen to what we believe about things, including our beliefs about God and his Word. I want my daughter to be committed to Christ and to want nothing more than to live obediently to God’s teachings because she loves him. But, I want her to be clear that salvation is not meritorious. It is always a grace gift for which she always ought to be thankful and obedient. “Trust and obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”
Por Su Gracia y Poder

The Gay Community and the State of California

When the CA Supreme Court in May of this year struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions there was cheering in the gay community. On the other hand, those who disagreed with the Court simply went to work to put Proposition 8 on the ballot for November. The reaction from the gay community since the amendment passed had been, until only last week, vociferous, violent and intolerant.

Leaving behind any biblical argument against gay relationships and marriages, let’s consider other matters that warrant reflection. Help me with this. Does any group have the right to have the traditional meaning of marriage redefined? For example, if tomorrow three men or three ladies wanted to marry each other, should they be allowed to take the new definition of marriage, sought now by gays, one step further and allow for such marriages to be legalized? Consider this scenario. What if a group of people believed that nothing is wrong with having sex with minors, and enough of them got signatures to place the amendment on a ballot, should not the amendment be allowed so that people could enjoy their understanding of what in their opinion constitutes a marriage? Wouldn’t they be able to cry, “Equal Rights”! I think most of us would have a problem with defining “marriage” along any of the above two lines, even if those involved argued that they loved each other and should have the right to define marriage anyway they chose.

Let’s take this a step further. Taking the two illustrations above, if the traditional definition of marriage is redefined, why would anyone care to prohibit any person or any group their right to enter marriage any way they seem fit? In other words, on what basis would they declare such relationships wrong or not beneficial to society? The redefining of marriage as anything else except between one man and one woman could eventually have the above slippery slope effect on society. No one would have a moral ground upon which to stop a series of re-definitions of what constitutes marriages.

But, some might argue, “Hasn’t marriage been redefined in the past already?” If so, what’s the big deal? Yes, the redefinition of marriage to allow for recognition in the case of slaves and interracial couples did take place years ago. However, these redefinitions of marriage were based on social and ethnic distinctions, not gender. Marriage was still defined to be the union of a man and a woman, whether between slaves or among interracial couples.

If I understand the law, as it stands now in California, gay folks already enjoy legal recognition as “domestic partners” who have “the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married couples do (see California Family Code section 297.5). Why insist on changing the traditional meaning (reference) of a word which the majority of the people in a state wish not to change? Why the hostility and the violence?

At the same we are concerned about the often expressed, as well as reported on, homophobic actions of some, whether religious or not. Many have displayed inappropriate attitudes toward gay people. Those within the Christian community who have demonstrated hateful actions toward the gay community do not reflect the ways of Christ. Everyone is worthy of respect on the basis of having been created in God’s image.

Having said this, it is true that families are concerned about what it would do to parent and child relationships if gay couples do constitute legal marriages. Families of small children in elementary school, for example, are concerned that tolerant education which already exists in CA will be taken to a new level and may leave parents sitting in the dark as it pertains to attempts at re-educating children. Such examples were seen in October with “Coming Out Days” celebrated in elementary schools in the state without the knowledge of some parents, who only found out about the homosexual education through casual after school conversations with their kids.

Some now fear that the amendment will be overturned. Last week the Supreme Court of California said that they will take up the matter of the amendment in March of next year, putting into question the livelihood of the amendment. What implications would such action communicate to our country? Richard Land recently wrote, “If the California Supreme Court were to now attempt to nullify what the people have chosen to do through an expression of their sovereign will, they will have attempted to usurp the sovereignty of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” and to replace it with government “of the judges, by the judges and for the judges” (The Christian Post, Wed., Nov. 19, 2008, www.Christianpost.com).


How, then, should the gay community respond? First, those who believe that “marriage” is the union of one man and one woman should not be labeled bigots as if “tolerance” is a one-way street. Their beliefs should be respected. Second, those in the gay community should tolerate the traditional definition of marriage in order to be consistent with their own message of tolerance and should continue to work peacefully to persuade people to think differently. However, once the people have spoken, as they did on Nov. 4, the democratic process should be honored.

Biblically, there are many arguments that can be established for rejecting a homosexual lifestyle. However, individual homosexuals should not be rejected. While many of us believe that the clamor of the gay community is really a plea for special rights, both sides of the issue are free to use the democratic process to advance their own agenda. What we ask of both sides is that the manner of persuasion adopted be peaceful and tolerant of individuals, and follow the chains of democracy our country has in place.

The World God Has Opened Up

I began reading a book the other day which asked a simple but penetrating question: “How do we see the world immediately around us? Do we see it as a place of mission which God is already opening up for us or do we see it as a place of immense threat – as the enemy to be overcome?” (Robinson & Smith, Invading Secular Space, 34). As in many areas of life this question brings out our perspective on sharing Christ into the forefront.

Jesus told his disciples to open their eyes (wake up) and see the fields that were ripe for harvest (John 4:35). Instead of hesitating to start spiritual conversations, or to take risks to enter into friendships, to speak about God, to speak of what God is doing, or of the people of God, or of activities concerning God in which we’re involved, why not open our mouths and let the words fall where they may. If it is true that God opened the heart of Lydia so she would believe (Acts 16:14), that those who were appointed to eternal life came to faith (Acts 13:48), that God added daily to the church those who were to be saved (Acts 2:47), if Paul knew that God through the grace of prayer would lead him to share (explain) with boldness the gospel (Eph. 6:19), why then are we not more bold, more open, more risk-taking, more believing, more willing to simply trust, obey and follow the path set before us?

Think with me. Is not society yearning for something to believe in? (In spite of the attacks from the New Atheism.) Are not many of the shelves at Barnes & Nobles filled with books on spirituality? Has not the skeptic, atheist world of modernity been “swallowed” up by the belief in one, belief in all, belief in anything, something, world of Postmodernity? Are not college and university Religion 101 and Philosophy 101 classes full with students searching, asking, questioning, rejecting, seeking, longing?

So, what’s the problem? Could it be we think the world is shut up in unbelief? That people will not respond to our spiritual probing? Is it fear? Could it be that we believe that the enemy can keep shut the hearts of those whose heart God wants to open? Furthermore, do we ignore that people are longing for acceptance and for community, or as some would say, for the opportunity “to belong before” they “believe”?

So, again, what’s the problem? I think that our perspective on spiritual reality is off track. Jesus died to bring sinners into a right relationship with God and to grant them eternal life. According to the verses quoted above God is actively calling people to himself (see John 6:65). If this is true, then what are needed are believers who understand and embrace their DNA, uh, that is, their mDNA, or their missionary DNA (core purpose, task). The church, if it is anything, must be a missionary church, or missional (if you want to be edgy) in its perspective on people. It must be willing to seek the lost (sorry if you don’t like the word), invade secular space, get in the mire, and enter darkness so that the light of the gospel has an opportunity to beam into the lostness.

God has gone before us. He doesn’t want anyone to perish, but desires that all come to salvation, deliverance, spiritual health, fullness of life. If this is what he wants, then this means that he is going ahead of us (you) preparing the hearts of your friends, family members, neighbors, co-workers, fellow students, enemies, skeptics, atheists, deists, spiritualists, cultural opposites, etc. The final question is: will we believe the empty threat of the enemy, or will we believe the purposes of God to involve us in missions? Will we obey, enter, and stand in awe of the world God has opened up for us?
Por Su Gracia y Poder

The Presidential Elections of 2008

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke). I hope that each of you who can vote will do so tomorrow. The elections of this year may very well be the most important of our life time. We will vote to put into the Office of President either Barack Obama or John McCain. There are obvious differences among the two, and there is a sea of experience that divides them, among many other constrasts that could be listed. Each of us will vote our conscious on Tuesday morning and play the part of a good citizen. Whoever is president Wednesday morning (if this in fact is determined) will govern our great country for the next 4 years. May we find peace in the result of the election - whatever this may be - and never forget the One in whom we are to trust and the One who alone knows the end from the beginning - the Lord Almighty. "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God" (Pslam 20:7).

"Just Walk Across the Room"

An uncle sitting alone after the funeral service for his deceased nephew. Tennis players sitting around afer practice. A Christian lady trying to find her way in a new church. And only a few steps from where I stood in each case and an attempt at friendship. I started a conversation, planted a seed.

Why walk across the room and spend time talking to people? Bill Hybels recently published a book called "Just Walk Across the Room". Hybels is known for his many books on evangelism. In this latest book he asks the question, "Are you using your steps wisely"? (19). He calculated that each of us travel about ten thousand steps each day which adds up to about 115,000 miles in one's lifetime. He writes the following: "Assume the average distance across most rooms is twenty feet -about ten steps. The question I hope to answer is this: What if ten steps - just one one-thousandth of your daily average - could actually impact eternity? If so, it might well change the way you walk" (19).

You'll have to read the book for yourself. But, the stories of people making a difference for eternity in the lives of others to whom they decided to simply walk across a room or a ball field to start a conversation, are amazing. One of the stories is about a Muslim man who shared with Hybels how he was approached by a follower of Christ during a business party. The Muslim as usual sat alone while others piled together and discussed whatever was on their mind. But one day things changed when someone was willing to step across the room.

Approaching people is always like stepping into the "Zone of the Unknown" says Hybels. For many people this zone is freightening. Hybel shares the following about the Christian who took the risk: "It's foreign territory, this zone. He had no clue what would happen when he stuck out his hand to the tall Muslim man. He knew nothing about where the conversation would go or if there would be any conversations at all. He was uncertain what this individual's reaction to him would be. But he was already committed. He had left his Circle of Comfort, he had walked by faith all the way across the room, and he had resolved in his heart, probably praying every step of the way, to enter into the Zone of the Unknown and see what God might do. (In my opinion, it's within this zone that God does his very best work.)" (23).

Hybel asks the question, "What if redirecting a person's forever really is as simple as walking across a room?" (22). I'm enjoying reading this book. It inspires me to continue seeking people and waiting patienty for them to respond. Why not try this approach to evangelism for yourself? I would love to hear your stories.
Por Su Gracia y Poder

More Food for Thought on Worship - Part II

Marva J. Dawn’s views on worship are reminiscent of other authors I have quoted before on the topic of worship, such as Vanhoozer and Piper. She writes: “We must therefore be constantly asking how our worship reveals God and what kind of people we are becoming, because the perspectives and understanding about God and the specific attitudes and habits of being that are created by all the elements of worship services affect how we think, speak, and act as we worship in the rest of life” (119).

For Marva, the question is not attractiveness but usefulness. She discusses this in relationship to liturgy. “We must not ask, Is this liturgy attractive? But always, What kind of character does this nurture? Does our liturgy focus on feelings rather than on God’s character, which evokes those feelings?” She adds, “If so, it will nurture a faith that depends on emotions rather than a faith that can cling to who God is in spite of human experiences of sorrow or estrangement” (249).

What about the relation between experience and worship? Should we seek to 'experience' worship? In discussing worship Leonard Sweet in his book Postmodern Pilgrims believes experience is indispensable for the postmodern generation. He affirms that "Postmoderns literally 'feel' their way through life. Want to create change? Give postmoderns a new experience they haven't had before" (43). It seems that Sweet stresses innovative art-forms and interactive preaching and images to “create” worship experiences, while Marva – although not against using those things – would argue to make sure that those experiences reflect God’s character and are not confused for experiencing God himself. It is looking upward and intensely to God, and obeying his word, that will ultimately bring about inward change in believers. Even Sweet agrees that "Experience is not the final arbiter of truth. Experience cannot be trusted except it has been transfigured by Scripture and Tradition. Besides, there comes a time when it's not time for experience, but for obedience" (46).

Marva J. Dawn invites us to ask how the way we worship God is faithful to scripture, and to further ask what kind of believer we are becoming as a result of how we worship God. Good thoughts for us to keep in mind as we worship daily and in our faith communities each week.

I close this week with a quote found in Dawn's book on the definition of worship written by William Temple: Worship is "The submission of all our nature to God. It is the quickening of the conscience by His holiness; the nourishment of the mind with His truth; the purifying of imagination by His beauty; the opening of the heart to His love; the surrender of will to His purpose - and all of this gathered up in adoration, the most selfless emotion of which our nature is capable" (Temple, Readings in St. John' Gospel, 68, quoted in Dawn, 80).

More Food for Thought on Worshipping God - Part I

What is the goal of worship? This is the question I would like to consider as I continue the week long theme on worship. Marva J. Dawn serves as Teaching Fellow in Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Years ago she wrote a very helpful book on the theme of worship, “Reaching Out without Dumping Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-of-the-Century Culture.” Marva provides readers with a much needed balance to the discussion on worship, as well as profound insights for reflection.

What stands out the most and is useful for evaluating worship in her book is Marva’s drive to make worship intentional in fulfilling a specific goal in worship. What is this goal? She states the following:
"I am very interested in using modern music . . . but our music must contain the substance of the faith, the heritage of the Church’s uniqueness, the character-forming truths of Christianity . . . Our worship services ought not to be designed by what appeals to the masses in order to survive financially; rather, they must be planned in a genuinely worshipful way that invites persons into the essence of truthful Christianity" (46-47). Paramount to Marva (see Vanhoozer in yesterday's blogspot) is the centrality of God in all of worship. His person must be the object of our worship. She believes that, “We cannot respond to God as the object of our praise unless we first see him, know him, let him be God in our lives” (87).

Marva goes on to discuss the significance of praising God. She writes, "Praise encompassing all of God’s character provides a safe haven within which we can face ourselves and acknowledge the truth of our brokenness, rebellions, and idolatries” (91). This means that the internal transformation that ought to characterize followers of Christ will take place as we consistently take the focus off ourselves and place them more intently on God.

What is the goal of worship? Marva quotes from C. Welton Gaddy, who writes the following: "'For whom is worship? Worship is for God. Only! The chief aim of worship is to please God - whether by adoration and praise, prayer and proclamation, confessions and offerings, thanksgivings and commitment, or by all of these actions combined'" (Gaddy, The Gift of Worship, 201, quoted in Dawn, 80). In worship we are saying "'God alone matters.'"

Is your goal in worship God alone? What should happen as we enter a time of worship where God alone is our focus? What kind of believers are we becoming as a result of how we are deepening our relationship with God? This will be our topic tomorrow.

Worshipping More Clearly - Part II

Yesterday I shared with you about an article I read on worship by Trinity professor and theologian, Kevin Vanhoozer. Vanhoozer says that when we catch “the vision of who God is and what God has done, it stops us in our tracks and elicits our praise” (10). This is similar to what John Piper has written with regards to the missionary heart that the honest worship of God creates in us (see blogspots for Sept 22-24). Vanhoozer writes the following concerning the meaning of worshipping God "in truth": “Truth sets us free ‘from’ idolatry: from false religion and false striving after meaning and happiness and righteousness. Consequently, truth sets us free ‘for’ right worship, for worship bent on ultimate reality” (10). What does it mean to worship God "in spirit"? Does it mean to worship according to the Holy Spirit, or is it related to our own spirit? To worship God in spirit, says Vanhoozer “engages not merely our mind, but our whole being or ‘spirit’: not only minds, but hearts, hands, and imaginations too” (11).

Vanhoozer goes on to emphasize how proper theology (=understanding of God and his ways) leads to true worship: “Theology, then, both emerges from and leads us back to worship. Conversely, worship must be theological: it must reflect faith’s understanding of who God is and what God has done. Furthermore, worship must be corporate, for one of the great things that God has done is precisely to form a people. Worship involves – in praise, in commemoration – of what Christians know about God” (14). If it is true that worship forms us spiritually, and I believe it does, Christians must deepen their understanding of how God is portrayed in the Bible and expose themselves to writings that help them challenge cultural depictions of God which are inferior to the inspired text.

What does Vanhoozer say about the various styles of worship? Who’s right on the issue? Vanhoozer exhorts the Church to go “beyond the worship wars” and says, “Whatever one thinks about musical styles, let us at least agree that worship must be theological – God-centered – not anthropological. It’s not primarily about us!” (14). Within our Christian narcissistic culture thinking of worship as “not primarily about us” is easier said than practiced. Worship through my life, as well as when with my faith community must be about God's glory and his exaltation. It should never be primarily focused on what I can get out of a worship experience, although I am always blessed when I wholeheartedly praise the Lord. It is about living worshipfully in submission of everything I am before all that God is.

Worship is indispensable for your life and mine. Both private and faith community worship should seek to worship God in “spirit and in truth”. Clarifying true worship, its subject and object, and its importance for shaping one’s life, must be the sine qua non of how we live our lives today. Not to worship God as the centerpiece of our lives will lead us to the false religions and substitutes spoken about by Vanhoozer in his article. He alone deserves our allegiance, our focus, and our loyalty.

Worshipping More Clearly - Part I

I’ve been thinking a lot about worship lately. In fact, our entire staff at church has been discussing the implications of worship in fantastic and marvelous ways that will be shared with our congregation in the future. I'll be dedicating this entire week to blog on the subject of worship. One theologian who has thought and written on this topic is Kevin J. Vanhoozer, professor of theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His article, “Worship at the Well: From Dogmatics to Doxology (and Back Again)" [Trinity Journal, 2002, V. 23, No. 1, 3-16.] attempts to clarify the meaning of worship and the response that is expected from those who honestly seek to worship God.

Vanhoozer discusses the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan women in John 4. In the article he asks, “Does it really matter how we worship? Yes it does, because ultimately it is not simply a question of ‘how,’ but also of ‘what.’ Questions of style are not unrelated to questions of substance”(5). What does he mean? Vanhoozer says that "The Samaritans’ knowledge of God was partial, hence their worship was defective. The problem was not that the Samaritans lacked exhaustive knowledge of God (who does not?), but that they did not know enough to worship him correctly” (8). So what is the point? Well this would mean that we must demand, for example, that our worship songs be scripturally clear in what they say about God, his nature and his ways. Because worship forms us we want to strive to worship God according to what he has revealed about his holiness and Sovereignty, as well as about his love, mercy, and justice.

Worship must go beyond what we do on Sundays. Our corporate worship should be an overflow of our daily practice of worshipping God "in spirit and truth". This leads to the following question: What happens when the eyes of believers are opened so that they see God for who he is? We'll look at what Vanhoozer says about this question tomorrow.
Por Su Gracia y Poder