After not having a lot of issues with the last chapter, the authors have come out once again to make huge statements without any Scriptural foundation at all which I find as alarming and dangerous as always.
The authors speak of modern day martyrs saying, “It is not obedience that is carrying out brothers and sisters – unwavering, steadfast, eyes ablaze – to their deaths. It is holy, fierce passion. Hearts afire. The root of all holiness is Romance” (113) While I am not in complete agreement with the first sentence, it does make an interesting point. I wonder, what do the authors know, sitting in their nice air-conditioned offices in middle class America about the lives and the motives of the hearts of those who are giving their lives in the name of the Gospel? In fact, what do I know about the lives of martyrs, both present and past? To look at a different side of it…what about those who are serving our country through the armed services, those who are giving their lives. Are they doing it out of obedience or out of passion and romance? I imagine there’s a combination of reasons (any military people out there want to chime in?) but I hazard to guess it is not a romantic passion that causes a soldier to follow the orders of his commanding officer, but respect and trust.
The last line of the passage I just quoted I find incredibly troubling, for the authors claim, “the root of all holiness is Romance.” (113) Instead of directly responding to that cryptic and wholly unsupported statement, I am going to turn to the Bible to share some verses relating to both holiness and obedience (for the authors just reported romance is more important than obedience)
- 1 Peter 1:13-16 “Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desire you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “be holy, because I am holy.”
- Leviticus 19:1-2 “The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’”
- Hebrews 11:8 “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going”
- Philippians 2:8 “And being found in appearance as a human being, [Jesus] humbled himself by coming obedient to death – even death on a cross.”
- 1 Sam 15:22 “But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
- 2 Co 7:1 “Therefore, since we have these promises [God will never leave us], dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”
None of these verses about obedience or holiness mention a single word of passion or romance as the authors imply are necessary. Their statement about the root of holiness is huge, and completely without Scriptural backing. There are many verses the authors did not take into account in making their statement about the foundation of holiness, some of which I listed above.
The authors speak on pages 114-115 about the various metaphors that are used to describe our relationship with God, (including but not limited to potter and clay, sheep and shepherd, etc.) noting, “Have you noticed they ascend in a stunning way?” (114) Where are these metaphors of intimacy in “ascending” order? Nowhere. True, the metaphors are in the Bible (though the authors failed to provide references), but there is no mention of any being more important than another, the Bible does not say, “this metaphor is the best, while this one is second best,” nor do they precede in any chronological order.
In talking about romance, the Stasi writes about a time John “snuck away for some time along with God, down to the beach where he walked and prayed and finally sat in the sand to watch the waves upon the sea. (His idea of refreshment is “the wilder the better.”)” (116) First of all…what is “wild” about sitting on the beach? She goes on to explain how John saw a whale in the water and took it as a sign that God loved him. On the next page Stasi writes, “I sat on the sand and looked out to the sea..” (117). (Is she being wild? How can a woman be wild?!) While sitting there she prayed, “I know you love John, Jesus, but do you love me to? That much? If you do, may I have a whale too?” (117). Instead of getting a whale, however, she sees starfish on the beach, which she interprets to also be a sign from God. In this story of animals sent from God to “romance” the authors…it appears that whatever had happened on the beach they would have attributed as “from God”. If nothing had appeared, they would have explained it away as God wanting them to trust him or something of that sort. In a sinful, fallen world in which God has granted us free will, we cannot safely attribute every event in our lives to be from God as the authors frequently imply. That is not to say that God cannot/does not intervene, but we should not expect or demand he do so. (doesn't her prayer come dangerously close (possible going past) the command in Deut 6:16 which clearly states “do not put the Lord your God to the test…” ?)
The authors later write, “Reading George MacDonald several years ago, I came across and astounding thought. You’ve probably heard that there is in every human heart a place that God alone can fill…But what the old poet was saying was that there is also in God’s heart a place that you alone can fill…you are meant to fill a place in the heart of God no one and nothing else can fill. He longs for you” (page 120). This statement is a fantastic example of making huge statements that have absolutely no Scriptural foundation. The author is relying on a statement made by another human being and taking it as truth without comparing and contrasting it with the images given to us in the Bible. This statement they make implies God needs us to make His joy and satisfaction complete. If God felt this way, wouldn’t he have said it? I’m not saying God doesn’t love or and doesn’t desire relationship with us, but he does not need us, he does not crumble without our affection. He is strong and mighty and can exist apart from us. There are several other references in this chapter indicating Jesus needs us to worship him. All of this portrays an inaccurate understanding of God. God does not need us. That’s not to say he doesn’t want us, but the authors could benefit from a quick lesson in need vs. want.
The authors write about women and worship. They write, “Women minister something to the heart of God that men do not” (124) and follow it up with some selective stories in which women worshipped God in the Bible. While these stories are true, the authors are being selective and misrepresentative by ignoring passages that speak about men who worshiped. They boldly continue by saying “women hold a special place in the heart of God. A woman’s worship brings immense pleasure and a deep ministry.” (125) SO DO MEN! This statement is completely irrelevant. It’s like saying “women can breathe” as if it’s something special they along can do. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women can worship in a way men cannot, or that women have a “special place” in the heart of God. God loves all equally and without judgment, regardless of gender.
The authors continue to take Scripture out of context in their constant references to the book Song of Songs to make their points. Even though this book clearly and specifically accounts Solomon's relationship with the Shulamite maiden, the authors use verse after verse as God speaking to women. The interpretation of this book is highly debated; it is not universally accepted that it is an allegory for our relationship with God. I am not completely disagreeing with this interpretation; I just am not completely convinced that is its primary purpose, or even secondary purpose. That being said, if the marriage relationship portrayed in Song of Solomon is supposed to be allegorical of our relationship with God, what about Ruth and Boaz, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Priscilla and Aquilla, Rachel and Jacob, Joseph and Mary, Rebekah and Isaac, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Ananias and Sapphira, Esther and Xerxes? What is it about Song of Solomon that makes their relationship more important, more representative, more real? There is nothing within the text of the book, which indicates its higher purpose, or value – that is something that is being read into it, which is not being read into other examples of relationships.
The authors make a continual mistake of confusing Biblical love with romance. Biblical love is defined as: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) I struggled to find a definition of “romance” which met the usage of the authors in this book. I found some definitions which seemed to come close to how the authors have been using it.. “a romantic spirit, sentiment, emotion, or desire., to court or woo romantically; treat with ardor or chivalrousness.” Romance is a good thing, but it tends to be based upon emotional or physical attraction, excitement, adventure and flattery rather than intimacy, close relationship and affection. Not once does the Bible talk about “romance” yet the authors place is above obedience and love? Why if it is such a crucial part of life does the word “romance” never appear in God’s word?
0 comments:
Post a Comment