For those theologians who believe the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a useful tool in formulating systemic theology it is easily applied to the topic of marriage.  The four categories of theological formulation according to the Quadrilateral are: Scripture, History (or Tradition), Reason, and Experience. It is a matter of debate whether or not this is a listing in order of priority or if these four approaches are to function as a rubric.  It is my belief that they are a listing of order of priority with Scripture having the most prominent role in formulating one’s theology.   Understanding this let’s look at the subject of marriage.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible will give the reader a quick knowledge of what God has ordained as constituting marriage.  Adam and Eve were created as male and female and they were the first married couple (married by God Himself) and being the first, the marriage between Adam and Eve then becomes the “law of the first mention” or “rule of the first reference” we have in Scripture of what constitutes a marriage.

After Adam and Eve, we see generation after generation practicing marriage as originally designed by God.  With the giving of the Law of Moses it was made clear by God that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.  For those of you who still believe in honest Biblical scholarship, you cannot ignore the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Unfortunately, such references have almost become “politically incorrect” and/or “spiritually incorrect” in most churches today.  Therein lies the problem.  Not so much that Pastors are afraid or intimated to tell the particular story of Sodom and Gomorrah but more significantly, that Pastors are simply afraid to raise the standard of holiness.  Pastors simply will not preach on evil, judgment, right or wrong, and “don’t even” mention the name of Satan or the Devil.  Don’t you know, such talk is “medieval and unsophisticated.”

Not only is there confusion within the church itself as to what actually constitutes a marriage, there is also another frontal assault against marriage and it is what I will refer to as “Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.” By this I mean, the world has developed an almost fantasy type concept of what true marriage is to look like by relying on Hollywood Reality Shows, overpaid immature sports stars, overpaid immature musicians and other entertainers of various sorts to tell us what “real marriage” is supposed to look like.

Years ago I heard someone make a statement that has stuck in my mind.  This person said you have to be careful when watching certain movies as they will take a story line that chronicles a person’s life over a period of decades and compress it into a 90 minute screenplay.  You can watch a period of years simply be bypassed with the momentary “flip of the screen” to the next scene.  While this may make for a good movie, it can hardly be considered an accurate portrayal of “real life” in the “real world.”  In other words, in real life, those momentary flips from one scene to the next represent years and often times, tears.  But yet, this is exactly how we think our lives should go, that is, let’s just simply bypass all the hard times, the work, the discipline, the growing and maturing and simply “have it all” on a whim – Carpe Diem.  And it gets worse, for it is implied that you are one of the “enlightened few” who actually understand that life can be this exciting and most others don’t have a clue.  So, go for it, live for yourself as you are one of the chosen and enlightened who really understand how to live at the higher levels of enjoying and experiencing life. If anyone brings such thinking into a marriage, that marriage is doomed.  This is what I am referring to as Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.

Another word to describe what I am talking about is “antinomianism.”  Antinomianism comes from the Greek word that literally means “against law.”  A better way to describe antinomianism is the idea that you can hear the gospel message and at the same time, give no thought to, and simply ignore the code of conduct, morality, social convention and conviction of sin that goes along with the gospel message. 

A very good discussion of antinomianism can be found in the book titled “Pastoral Theology” by Thomas C Oden.  On page 8, Oden writes “Keep in mind that antinomianism is our own doing.  We cannot conveniently claim to be victims of some external, evil, socially alienating force.  We have welcomed it, confusing it with genuine Christian liberty.  Its modern forms are sexual permissiveness, egocentric romanticism and a vague taste for anarchy…Feelings of guilt are considered neurotic.  God turns out to be a naïve zilch who permissively turns his eyes away when we sin. How strangely different from the Holy One of Amos, Isaiah and Jesus.”

Another book where this concept comes up is found in “The Reason For God” by Timothy Keller.  On page xxiii of the Introduction, a counselee of Keller writes “While sitting in a coffee shop reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity, I put down the book and wrote in my notebook ‘the evidence surrounding the claims of Christianity is simply overwhelming.’ I realized that my achievements were ultimately unsatisfying, the approval of man is fleeting, that a carpe diem life lived solely for adventure is just a form of narcissism and idolatry.”

How can I get to this point and not bring up a most clear and explanatory example of what we are talking about.  How many remember the old country song titled “Help Me Make It Through The Night” by Sammi Smith.  Let’s see, the lines were “I don’t care what’s right or wrong, And I won’t try to understand, Let the devil take tomorrow, Lord tonight I need a friend.”   

With all of these faulty concepts stacked against what true marriage is supposed to be like, it is little wonder why so many fail.  But there is yet a more significant problem.  It is the absence of God in a marriage.  By this I mean, God has to be a part of a marriage, just like He was in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In the beginning, God was very much involved with the first marriage.  God was Teacher, Counselor, Father, Creator and Lord.  This was how marriage was created and instituted to be, that is, God was to be involved and God was to be the covering for marriage between a man and a woman.  Seeing that this was the original model for marriage and the way God designed marriage, then how does anyone expect a marriage to succeed if God is out of the picture. Let me say it another way.  Seeing that God created man and woman and subsequently established the marriage covenant between a man and woman by His authority, then how can a marriage be successful today if the married couple leave God out?

The model for marriage is found in the first few pages of the Book of Genesis.  Adam and Eve are our example.  It is when they chose to push God aside and do things their own way that things went terribly wrong. When God is absent from a marriage, you will see self-centeredness quickly move into such a marriage.  And, with self-centeredness comes strife, resentment, anger and division. If Adam and Eve, being the first and perfectly created married couple were not spared the consequences of rejecting God as being a part of their marriage, then who is anyone today to believe that they would not suffer the same?

From the beginning of the history of man we have a clear and indisputable model of what a true marriage is supposed to look like.  It is a marriage in which God is the center and in which God is allowed to be a guiding influence. Apart from this, it is little doubt that any marriage will be successful.

read comments (0)

The Law of the Angels

This is a book which exhibits an incongruence between the title and what the book actually talks about.  The title “The Law of The Angels” sounds rather mystical and interesting but, once you get into the book, there is very little written about angels.  The one reference I find to the title is on page 41 where, as the author is speaking about the different expressions of love, she injects the statement “This is angel law. This is the way the angels live.”  After this brief reference to angels, there is not much more on the subject of angels.  I have seen in certain blogs that some are saying that this book was re-titled upon reprinting and given the title “Love: The Law of The Angels.”  However, the 1979 edition I was able to obtain is simply titled “The Law of The Angels.”

It appears that the thesis of this book is to give the reader a broad overview of the subject of love and how love is to operate in the lives of Christians.  Then, upon giving a protracted and tedious definition of what love is supposed to be in the life of the Christian, the more subtle and actual core emphasis of the book comes out. 

Gwen Shaw in her book The Law of The Angels portrays love as a more feminine attribute than masculine and thus Shaw puts forth the thesis that the Christian women of the world are spiritually superior to the Christian men of the world. And, because women are more spiritually sensitive than men, then by function women can be used by God to express His love to the world more than can be accomplished through “insensitive men.”

I realized that I needed to activate my theological radar defense shield (discernment of spirits) when on page VII of the Introduction we see Shaw say “I wish I could say that my own love is perfect, or that I myself had attained unto the high degree of perfection which you will find in the pages of this book.  These are truths that God has made known to me.” This type of posturing is something that I have become quite wary of lately.  As you will see shortly, Shaw’s statements were born out of false humility.

Before we get into the “love” part of the book, I do want to point out what I believe is another area of problematic theology in Shaw’s book.  It has to do with why Jesus was crucified and what was accomplished in the crucifixion.  On page 14 we see Shaw state “You see, the Law of Moses will never point anyone to the cross.  You know what the Law of Moses did?  It crucified Jesus.  Do you know that it was on the authority of the Law of Moses that the Jews crucified Jesus?”  One might ask why I see this as problematic.  It is troublesome because traditional and orthodox theology teaches us that the Law of Moses had the function of making mankind aware of his sin.  Then, we see that Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses by offering Himself upon the Cross as a sacrifice for our sin.  And, it was Roman Soldiers who actually crucified Jesus by the insistence of the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees. I see this theological awkwardness as a product of Shaw’s hurried attempt to get straight to her main thesis of her book which appears to be the desire of God to express His love toward mankind, rather than judgment.

One other area to make note of before we get to the main thesis is that of the belief of the eternal existence of man’s spirit or what is known as the “pre-existence and transmigration of souls.” We see this on page 68 where Shaw states “Way back there in antiquity, in the origin of time, far beyond your known history or ability to recall, you were in the plan of God.  You are an eternal living spirit.  Your body is loaned to you for only a season of sojourn on Earth.  As an eternal being, you are without beginning or ending.  And back there, hidden in the midst of a million forgotten eons of time we stood in His glory, being part of His spirit, fashioned even then in His likeness, as He planned for us.  There He created us male and female.”

The above theology is extremely troublesome.  So, according to Shaw, “we always existed”, “we are part of God”, but yet God created us.  So, is God creating “part of Himself” or, what is going on here?

As troublesome as the already mentioned items are, the real “bombshell” of The Law of The Angels happens on page 111.  After having “put men in their place” on pages 72 and 73, we read on page 111 what Shaw is really trying to get the reader to believe.  On page 111, Shaw has been describing a vision she had of Eve praying and asking God to forgive her for her sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.  Eve is described as being very distraught and in much aguish before God.  Then, we see Shaw state “I saw how through the centuries, even after her transition (whatever that means), she had wept and cried to God the Father to be merciful to her sons and daughters.  She had interceded for our release and had been permitted to see that her prayers had not been in vain, her intercession had accomplished its goal and she had prayed through.  God is going to begin to show His glory to Eve’s children.  We have finished drinking the cup of our iniquity, our day of redemption is here now.  That is the reason God is using us handmaidens.  Somehow God is going to allow us to make up for our mother’s failure.  We not only want to bless and help our brothers return to the lost paradise, we want to return ourselves.  Oh, God help us!  Brothers, help us!  We need you and you need us!  We went out together and we must return together!…As women travail and intercede, they will be used by the Lord to restore all that has been lost through the fall.” 

So, there you have it.  God is going to use women to restore mankind to Himself.  But, what about the accomplished work of Jesus on the Cross?  Is it not complete?  Didn’t Jesus, through His sufferings and crucifixion restore all?  What was left undone?  What can woman do that has not been accomplished through and by the crucifixion?  If you think these questions are unfounded then, go on to page 115 and see Shaw state “I believe the Blood of Jesus is going to become more powerful in the end time.  More powerful than in the day it poured from His veins…”

If all of this is not a problem for you then, I must direct your attention to the most theologically explosive part of the entire book.  On pages 165 and 166 we see Shaw state “This feminine aspect of the eternal God is the El-Shaddai, the mother-nature of God.  It is in the realm that the Shekinah is revealed and does its high office work.  You will remember us mentioning in chapter 13 that God had created Adam male and female.  If God created man male and female, it was because bisexuality somehow belongs to His own nature.  The fact has been recognized by early rabbinic commentators that this is true.  One even concluded that God had made Adam androgynous, and later separated him into Adam and Eve.  Lantero states that it is recognized that while individuals belong to one sex or the other, we are all androgynous in the sense of having both male and female hormones, as well as potential character traits traditionally associated with both sexes.  This beautiful aspect of the mother nature of God is one which we need to meditate upon more. Why is it that the Glory of God,  His Shekinah, seems to be resting in greater magnitude on the daughters of Eve in this generation? This is very evident, not only in one country but in all the nations where I have worked for God, and especially where women have been permitted by their male elders to let God’s glory be borne witness of through their freedom to speak.  The women are the great intercessors, the fasters, the praisers, prophetesses, missionaries, healers, and they are fast becoming the deepest of teachers.” 

Finally, in reference to the above excerpt, on page 67, we see Shaw describe that when God first created Adam, that he was created with a womb, which God subsequently took out of Adam and used it to create Eve. 

The theology presented in Shaw’s book is simply shocking.  Gwen Shaw, in no uncertain terms, portrays Adam as having been created as an androgynous hermaphrodite.  She even says so in her book.  This depiction simply leaves one speechless.

Such theology by Gwen Shaw opens the door wide open for Satan to flood in with a horde of demonic spirits.  Shaw has theologically emasculated Christian men.  Shaw sets Christian women on a higher plane of greater power and importance than Christian men.  This is a Satanic doctrine.

This book is available through Amazon.com.

read comments (0)