My wife and I moved to Colorado back in the Summer of 1987. We lived there for just over nine years. Our two sons were born there. We lived in Lakewood the first few months and then moved to Castle Rock in January of 1988. Castle Rock sits just off Interstate 25 and is situated just between and, is a short drive from Denver and Colorado Springs. In fact, many people from the three communities would go back and forth to the different churches in the three cities.

I recall the one and only time I met Pastor Ted Haggard. It was in either late 1988 or sometime in 1989. At that time, New Life was still meeting in the building they were using just previous to the newer buildings they currently meet in. I was invited to go visit New Life with an elder of the church I was attending at the time, in Castle Rock. This particular elder was telling me that he and his wife had attended Pastor Haggard’s church a few years earlier when there were just a few people. He stated that he would like to go see how things were going for New Life and say hello to Pastor Haggard.

The elder and I made the short trip down the freeway to Colorado Springs and attended the service that evening and then afterwards went up front to meet Pastor Haggard. Indeed, this elder was well known by Pastor Haggard as they began talking and asking each other about many mutual friends and acquaintances and, talked about how the church used to be in the early days. I may have spoken three sentences to Pastor Haggard. And, I certainly am not naïve to suggest now that I believe that he would even remotely remember meeting me. I mean, he has probably had tens of thousands of such encounters, meeting a friend of a friend kind of a thing. But, my meeting him is not the point.

New Life is not just any church. New Life is a regional megachurch. New Life is well known and well connected within the national evangelical, conservative Christian network. New Life could even be considered a “Flagship Church” of the Religious Right. New Life sits just off of Interstate 25 on the east side. It sits on a rolling hill which is somewhat elevated above the freeway and the front entrance to the church building faces in a slightly southwestern direction facing the southern most tip of the United States Air Force Academy and Pike’s Peak. The view from the entryway of New Life Church is what people take vacations to see. It is breathtaking in late Spring and early Summer as Pike’s Peak shimmers in the early morning sunshine reflecting off a heavy mantle of freshly fallen snow. Pike’s Peak is a 14,000 foot mountain that kind of sits out by itself from the rest of the Front Range. Then, just south of the church is the Chapel Hills Mall. The mall has an upper level grouping of restaurants with a southwestern wall with large 10 – 15 foot windows that provide the restaurant guest with a fantastic view of Pike’s Peak. My wife and I have dined there many times.

Pastor Ted Haggard is not just any Pastor. If you were to use a military analogy to describe all of this, then Pastor Ted Haggard would be a Three Star General of the Religious Right. He would be like a commander of an entire theater of operations. He would be like a leading officer who has been entrusted with some of the mission’s most sensitive secrets and strategies. And now, he has “gone bad”.

It must be understood that New Life was built on sound and fundamental Christian orthodoxy, on strict guidelines of Biblical interpretation, on sound and proven doctrines of the Christian faith. One of those is the doctrine that marriage consists of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. Another of those is the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. But now, you have Pastor Haggard saying that he is confused on the subject of sex. He is saying that he is attracted to men as well as being attracted to his wife. He is saying that he is having trouble figuring out his own sexuality. But, at that same time, he is asking New Life Church to accept him the way he is, without any reservation or consideration of the foundational principles of New Life. This is the same church that has been taught and believes very strongly that same sex attraction is very much against God’s will and that it is sinful to have and/or act upon same sex attraction. In fact, Pastor Haggard was quite instrumental in teaching against and rallying against same sex attraction in the past. But now, after he himself has gotten caught participating in same sex activities, he is saying to the church, “hey, it’s not a big deal, accept me the way I am”. It is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too”.

All of this has put New Life Church in an impossible situation. Even though Pastor Haggard has been away for some time, he is now back in Colorado Springs and this is a very serious problem for New Life. I said to my wife when I first learned that Pastor Haggard was returning to Colorado Springs “New Life is going to have a very serious problem on its hands”.

If you were to use a political analogy, we could look at the example of former President Richard Nixon. Let’s say, after having been impeached and exiled by the leaders in the national government, President Nixon would have returned to Washington after a year. And, upon his return, President Nixon could have started holding interviews with the national media saying things like “they did me wrong”, “they don’t know all the information”, “they are mean-spirited”, “and, I think I still deserve to be President”, “and, you know what, if this government won’t accept me back as their President, then, maybe I’ll start my own government”.

Such a thing would have been a nightmare you say, even dangerous to the stability to the country. That would have been quite true. Well, in a microcosmic sense, this is the same type of scenario that you have playing out in Colorado Springs. You have a Pastor who was relieved of his command and sent away in exile. However, that same Pastor has now returned saying all sorts of things that suggest he is probing to see if there is any chance he could get his old command back, and, there are rumblings that if he doesn’t get his old position back he may start another church. All of this is just ruinous for New Life. And, on top of it all, there is now another individual who has come forward who is telling his story of very sordid and evil things that went on between him and Pastor Haggard.

There is an even larger and broader element at play in all of this. One has to ask the question why is the liberal, secular media going “ga-ga” over Pastor Ted Haggard. Why is he getting these prime-time interviews with some of the top names in the TV talk show world. There is a reason and, it is very sinister. For you see, Pastor Ted Haggard represents to the very liberal left wing of politics and to the homosexual community what I call the “missing link” in the debate over homosexuality. If you caught the pre-release interview done between Anderson Cooper and Alexandra Pelosi on CNN the other evening you could hear sounds and tones of what I am saying.

It is because of the church that Pastor Haggard used to pastor and it is because of the doctrinal belief system that Pastor Haggard is coming out of that makes him a most exquisite prize for the homosexual agenda. For you see, here you now have a very high ranking Pastor within the camp of the Religious Right coming forth and saying that he is confused about his sexuality. This gives the liberal left and the homosexual community an example of what they are saying proves that homosexuality simply cannot be confined to, or portrayed as, a lifestyle that is evolving out of the far-left. It is an opportune moment for the homosexuals to show that homosexuality is, in their minds, mainstreamed within our society. In street, they are saying “Hey look, if you are going to say that homosexuality is only for a few of us misguided individuals on the far-left, look here now at this Pastor who is a leading figure within the far-right religious community who is now saying that even he is confused about his sexuality”.

All of this has now moved the debate on homosexuality to the forefront. It is no longer an issue that Christians can choose to ignore because they might be uncomfortable with it. If this were a game of chess, one might say that the opponent has begun advancing the pieces from the back row. This debate will grow increasingly intense with greater and greater ramifications for our society. If you are still not convinced and don’t want to get involved then consider the following. If you are familiar with the policy in the military concerning gays which says “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, then you know that this is now being reviewed for updating or being changed. The suggestion is that gays be allowed to openly serve in the U.S. military. Not much difference than what is going on now you may say. But wait, consider this, if you simply change the policy from “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” to allowing military members to serve openly as gays, then, in short order, some of these members will start getting married, and, that marriage would then be sanctioned by the U.S. Government. If then, a marriage between two gay members of the military is endorsed by, confirmed by, officially recognized by the U.S. Government, then, how can any State Government within the U.S. say otherwise?

My wife and I have some very dear and close friends who are currently attending New Life Church and have been attending there for many years. So, writing about all of this is somewhat sensitive and I must take much care. But, one thing the Body of Christ cannot ignore is that what we see unfolding in Colorado Springs will affect the entire Body of Christ as the consequences of this saga are very far reaching in scope and substance.

Publish Date: January 29, 2009

read comments (0)

I  just finished reading the book titled The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. I had not planned to read this book, and, in fact, did not want to read this book. However, after hearing so much about it, after being asked several times if I had read it, and being involved in several discussions about the book with those of my own church, I decided it was time that I got informed. So, I read the book.

There is much to discuss concerning The Shack. To start with, it must be understood now and understood throughout this critique that The Shack was written as a fictional novel. So, it is an extremely difficult task to make a spiritual critique on a book that was written about God, but at the same time, understanding that everything said in the book, every conversation with God that is described in the book, is “fictional”. In other words, the book is written as sort of “if I were to sit down and have a one-on-one conversation with God, this is what He might say to me”.

Next, it is very possible and probable that the author of The Shack is using the characters, in the book, to vicariously express his own personal feelings and emotions surrounding his personal life struggles. It appears, after reading the book, and, after doing some research on the author, that in fact, he has vicariously expressed himself not in just one of the characters of the book, but, in multiple characters of the book…that is written as fiction. One point of note is that God the Father is portrayed as a highly relatable and friendly Black woman. You know, this doesn’t freak me out to be honest with you. It does present some problems with critique however. For you see, to be a Black woman is to be what we used to say in political science a “double minority”. It would be like saying something negative about outgoing Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who I think very highly of by the way. So, to get involved critiquing this book is now like walking through a field of land mines (anti-tank type mines!). But, I am going to believe that serious Christians can get beyond this sensitivity and look at this book with a mature mind. However, all of these factors put together make a critique extremely difficult.

But, none-the-less, here goes. First of all, upon reading just the first few pages one can clearly see that this book was not just “thrown together” or casually written as some are wanting us to believe. This book is very well written with every other sentence communicating powerful and vivid imagery. The story line, up to the point of Mackenzie’s daughter getting kidnapped, raped and murdered is very powerful and has a magnetic grip on the reader. No, I don’t think it is an accurate analysis to say that The Shack is some kind of thrown together after thought. This book is well written and was written to appeal to a broad audience. This book was written to make money and it is doing that in a very big way. We will visit that point later.

There is much being said about this book. One of the criticisms in that The Shack is somehow promoting modalism or, what is more commonly known as Jesus Only, Jesus Name or Oneness theology. Personally, having read the book, I don’t see this. If anything, the three characters or persons of the Godhead are portrayed extensively as three separate but yet combined entities. These three members of the Godhead are depicted as being highly interactive with each other and functioning in unison but yet, at the same time, having very distinctive characteristics apart from each other. This portrayal promotes the doctrine of a triune God. The book portrays God as a trinity and not as a modalistic God. At one point in the book, we see a scene in the kitchen of the Shack, where the father/mother god, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all in bodily form and having a conversation with each other about what they are cooking.  To portray all three members of the Godhead as being in the same place, at the same time, and all in different and separate forms absolutely does not fit with Jesus Only or Oneness doctrine.  It is the antithesis of Oneness doctrine. I don’t know how someone could draw the conclusion that The Shack is enforcing the modalistic point of view. I have had more than a little exposure to the modalistic viewpoint. Over the years, I have had many “debates” with Jesus Name or Jesus Only or Oneness Pastors and I can tell you, The Shack does not promote the view of this group. Not even close.

In fact, I will say that to draw such a conclusion about The Shack is to throw out a theological “red herring” that diverts the reader from something more serious. What I see as the primary problem with this book is that there appears to be a portrayal of God that seems to imply a sympathetic position concerning gender identity disorder. This book goes well beyond the concept that some people, because of a poor relationship with their natural father, struggle with the idea of God being masculine or “Father”. Such a thesis is very reasonable and it seems that there are many people who do have a problem when it comes to relating to God the Father. This is understandable. But, it doesn’t change who God is and, neither can any person change God into “something they can deal with”. And, this is exactly what the author of The Shack has done.

Not only is God portrayed as having a gender identity disorder but, Mack, the main character in the book also exhibits traits of gender identity disorder. This, I believe is the most serious problem with this book. At one point, on pages 147 – 148, we see Jesus and Mack having a conversation about the characteristics of men as compared to women and we see Jesus actually saying “…the world would be a calmer and gentler place if women ruled”.

And, then there are all the “touchy feely” moments as described between the three members of the Godhead. There are the times that God gives Jesus a kiss on the cheek as He is leaving the room and the moments when the Holy Spirit and Jesus hold each other and make protracted eye contact as if locked in some type of divine emotion for each other. It is all quite feminine to me. God is definitely not portrayed in a masculine way. And, here is a serious problem because the God that is portrayed in The Shack is very different than the God that is portrayed in the Bible. But, then again, The Shack is fiction. But, even though it is fiction, and even though it was not written as a serious theological treatise, it is being promoted extensively by the Christian media.

Next, there is the issue of the “independence” of man. The primary issue between God and man is described as one of man wanting to be independent from God. The book describes the original sin of man, in the Garden of Eden, as being one of seeking independence from God, not one of willful disobedience. Then, in a discussion concerning all of this, we see on page 149 where Jesus says “…My life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being My follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus’, it (rather) means for your independence to be killed”. Again, remember that this book is a fictional writing.

It seems almost as if, when looking at pages 147- 148 that the book is implying that the world has all the problems that it has, because there are men in the world. In fact, Mack says exactly this on page 147. You can also see some of Mack’s struggle with masculinity on page 93.

It seems like, you could say that the meeting between God and Mack is described in a way that is extremely self-focused. It seems that Mack is describing his meeting with God as if it is all about him (Mack) rather than God. In other words, it’s like “God gets to meet me” rather than “I get to meet God”. There is a big difference. I mean, take a moment here and remember Isaiah chapter 6.

Again, The Shack is a fictional writing. But, fiction or not, an author will write from his or her life’s frame of reference. And, this leads me to believe that there is a whole lot of vicarious expression going on in this book. Not only through the character of Mack, but also through God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and I might add, there appears to be some vicarious expression going on with the character of Mack’s young daughter who is raped and murdered.

The other area of serious concern I see in this book is one of portraying Jesus as being against organized religion. One page 179 we see Jesus talking with Mack about religion and institutions. Then, we see Jesus inform Mack that He is against organized religious institutions. This is gravely serious. This implies that all Christians should abandon their organized churches and denominations and simply float around in some dreamy way without rhyme or reason and just “exist” and whatever will be will be.

The author of The Shack may have had his experiences with organized religion but, that doesn’t give him the authority to portray God as being against organized religion. In fact, if one reads the Bible, it can clearly be seen that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all supported, promoted and endorsed organized religion. It is heresy to say otherwise. If we don’t organize as Christians, then we will simply wander around aimlessly without focus, without direction and without vision or purpose. This is one of the most serious faults I find with The Shack and I think it is inexcusable for the author to have portrayed God as being against religious organization. But, then again, the book is fiction, right.

Some final thoughts on The Shack. Why is the family cat named “Judas”? Why is the word sin, and concept of sin, substituted with the word “sickness”. Why is the Holy Spirit portrayed as saying that it is OK to view the stories in the Bible as “myths or tales”? It appears that on page 182, the door is opened for Ecumenicalism.

One more thought before I close. I cannot help but address this issue. This book entitled The Shack is being portrayed as having been written almost on a whim, as having been written as an afterthought, as being thrown together on the spur of the moment. I think not. The book I read is not thrown together. It is masterfully written as far as writing skills and writing mechanics go. I think it is false humility to say that it’s just a momentary product of a momentary thought. It is not. And, it has generated a ton of money. This paperback copy sells for $14.99. This book has now sold over 2,000,000 copies. So, let’s see $14.99 x 2,000,000 = $29,980,000. My friend, this is not casual stuff. And, I can guarantee you this book will have a sequel. With that kind of money involved, are you kidding!

In closing, I will say that the real dangers of The Shack are found in the theological subtleties. And, these subtleties are significant. It seems that, in the book, you get the sense that God is portrayed as having to deal with Mack rather than Mack having to deal with God. It seems to be “all about Mack” and that the universe evolves around Mack. God is stripped of any and all sovereignty and majesty. God is portrayed as quite common. Granted, Jesus did come the first time in very lowly estate, born in a manger, a carpenter, lived a humble life and was crucified. But, that was then. If you read the Book of Revelation, we see a very different Jesus. Granted, Jesus does relate to us as a man and He is very human, but, He is at the same time God. It is OK, I believe, to think of Jesus in human terms and relate to Him as a man, but, at the same time, one cannot set aside Jesus as described in the Book of Revelation. And, it is this Jesus who will return.

Publish Date: January 10, 2009

read comments (0)

I have noticed a recent trend in television news interviews. It particularly deals with interviews of leading Christian figures as seen on some of the major news outlets. And, not only interviews with leading Christian ministers but, also leading politicians who claim to be Christian. There is a trend among some of our media elite to question the validity of the Bible. They ask the question “Do you believe that the stories as written in the Bible are literal and true? In other words, do you believe that the stories we read about in the Bible really happened?”.

The above question requires a yes or no answer. And, some of the answers that we hear people giving are surprising and, to say the least, disappointing. As a Christian, you must be able to say “yes” the stories in the Bible are true. If you are going to say “no”, then what is your frame of reference for giving such an answer? By what authority can anyone say that the Bible is not legitimate in regards to historical record? This is most important because whatever answer a person gives at this point will direct us to a source, or a body of knowledge, or a belief system that has greater authority than the Bible. To put it in street vernacular, if a person is going to say that the stories in the Bible are not true then, that person is claiming to have a source of knowledge greater than the Bible. What is it?

A brief note here before we move on. Why is it when someone who claims to be a Christian and that person is interviewed on national TV that we see their Christianity challenged. Why is it that we hear questions concerning the validity of that person’s religious belief system? Why do we not hear the same challenge to those of other religions? It is a clear and glaring double-standard. I mean, have your ever heard one of our great TV reporters, when interviewing a Muslim, ask that person if he or she believes that the stories in the Koran are true? Or, have you ever heard a TV news reporter, when interviewing a Hindu, ask that person if he or she believes that the writings of the Mahabharata or Bhagavad Gita are true? Even recently, we saw where reporter Cynthia McFadden conducted an interview with outgoing President Bush during which the authority of the Bible was discussed. So, why is such a question asked about the Bible and its validity? Just a thought.

One more note concerning TV interviews before we move on. Have you seen the earpiece that is often worn by the TV newsperson when interviewing? It is usually attached to the back of the person’s shirt collar and then is wired around, behind the ear so as to be as little noticed as possible. Well, when you see that, the interviewer is receiving communication from others who are sitting off in a room somewhere else in the studio. This can be, and is often more than one person. This is important in understanding how a national news interview is conducted. Have you ever wondered how a TV news interviewer can be so astute, so quick in their thinking, so abstract in their thoughts, so able to juggle the many variables and factors of the interview and ask such exact questions at the most precise time possible? They appear so confident as they often ask such questions with an insouciant and condescending smile. Indeed, the interviewers often come across as a super-genius in their ability to think and formulate their questions. How can the interviewer appear to be so brilliant as to ask the perfect question at the perfect time. There is a reason for this. If they have the earpiece in, then, in fact they are getting some of these great questions from others who are sitting in the production room off to the side. So, in essence, the interviewee is not being interviewed by just one person, but by others and they could be “experts” in the field of study of the subject being discussed. If you are having trouble with this reality then, ask yourself how many times have you heard a news reporter say “I’ve got to go, my producer is telling me it’s time for a commercial break”.

So, the question is “Do you believe the stories in the Bible are true?”. If someone is going to question the validity of the stories in the Bible then that person has a major problem on their hands. For you see, to challenge the validity of the stories in the Bible is to also challenge the validity of the words of Jesus Himself. You may ask how so? It is so because we see where Jesus many times in scripture quoted and made reference to the stories in the Old Testament. Therefore, if a person is going to say that the stories in the Bible are not true, then, you are also saying that the words of Jesus are not true. That’s right. A person who challenges the validity of the Bible is also challenging the validity of the words of Jesus. In essence, anyone who challenges the validity of the stories in the Bible is also calling Jesus a liar.

One of the Bible stories that often comes up is the story of Jonah and the whale. The experts try their best to debunk this story with all of their high-minded analysis. They give their natural analyses of their natural mind as they try to explain why the story simply cannot be true. But, in their analysis, as always, they leave out the supernatural and creative quality of God. Look, if God can create a whale and a man, and create the very sea that the whale lives in, then of course God is able to change the natural conduct of the whale and the natural process of the whale’s digestive system to accommodate Jonah for a few days to get Jonah’s attention. So, you see, to question the validity of the story is to question the greatness of God Himself. Is any man, and his feeble analysis, greater than God?

Next, we see in the New Testament, in Matthew 12:40 where Jesus makes the statement “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth”. Jesus is talking about His mission to save mankind. Jesus is making reference to His sacrificial death and uses the Old Testament story of Jonah spending three days and nights in the whale as an analogy of what He Himself is about to endure. Now, at this point, to say that the story of Jonah is not a true story would be not only challenging the authority of scripture but also calling Jesus a liar. Not only would you be calling Jesus a liar, but you would be calling Him a liar as He was talking about His sacrifice for the sins of mankind. This is extremely serious.
Read the rest of this entry »

read comments (0)