by Eric Barger

 

Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? - I Kings 3:9

I like Paul Young. Having heard him speak about his life and book three times recently in Portland, Oregon I found him to be passionate, witty and funny. While at Young’s alma mater (Warner Pacific College), I was able to spend a few moments with him privately during which time I asked him to personally respond to several criticisms and concerns that I and other Christians are raising about the theological contents of his book. I wish I could report that he allayed my apprehensions but instead, I went away convinced that The Shack is more than just a little offbeat but is, as Dr. Albert Mohler pegged it on his radio program, “blatant heresy.”

Yes, The Shack is indeed a novel. And many will wonder what could be wrong since it is identified as a Christian book and authored by a man who claims to be a Christian? After all, The Shack is heralded by many seasoned Christian leaders. Pastors are preaching from it. Sunday School classes and small groups are reading and discussing it. Many Christians are buying it by the case to give as gifts. Some Christian Schools are even sanctioning and encouraging the reading of the book. But this is not just a benign story of man overcoming life’s challenges. Make no mistake, the book presents doctrine throughout its clever and gripping story – something the author clearly intended to do. Therein lays the problem.

Trading the Kingdom for a Shack

For those unaware of the book’s storyline, here is the description of The Shack from Amazon.com.

“Mackenzie Allen Philips’ youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.

Four years later in the midst of what he refers to as ‘The Great Sadness,’ Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.

Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack’s world forever.

In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant ‘The Shack’ wrestles with the timeless question, “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?”

The Shack is a publishing phenomenon but you may ask “is it really any big deal?” This self-published book has sold 4+ million copies since its May 2007 release. It debuted at #1 on The New York Times Bestseller List and has remained there for the past 25 weeks as of this writing. It has also held the #1 position on many other bestseller lists including Amazon.com, USA Today’s Top 150 Books, Barnes and Noble, Borders Books and is the #1 book of 2008 at ChristianBook.com. According to the author, the book is currently selling 87,000 copies a week in the secular book stores alone. All of this has allowed Young and his two publishing partners the luxury of holding out for just the right major motion picture deal as well. But there is a reason why several dozen publishers turned this book down. Here are a few of my observations – and objections.

The Shack’s Trinity

Several chapters into the book, a most unorthodox version of the Holy Trinity is revealed. Young’s tale diminishes Almighty God from His rightful position as a supernatural being. Instead of speaking by His Word and His Spirit, He is morphed into a feminine figure reduced to passing notes to those whom she wants to communicate with.

God is portrayed in The Shack as a large African-American woman named “Papa” also called “Elousia.” (Talk about gender confusion!) Jesus is a Jewish carpenter complete with a tool belt and the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian woman named after “Sarayu,” a mystical river in ancient India related to the Hindu deity Kali. Clearly, there is a trinity in The Shack but it is absolutely not the Trinity.

From my first glance at The Shack, it struck me that the idea of God in human form – even in the pages of a novel is more than just theologically questionable. It is forbidden by several passages from both the Old and New Testaments not the least of which is the Second Commandment (Exodus 20: 4-5). The Apostle Paul proclaims, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” (Romans 1:21-23a)

Of The Shack, Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint contributing editor Travis McSherley wrote, “This is the root of the book’s problems. In the course of the biblical narrative, God the Father never reveals Himself in the form of a human. In fact, Christ rebukes His disciples for even suggesting it. (See John 14:5-10)

The Shack would not dispute these limits of understanding – it dedicates many pages to chastising believers who cling too tightly to traditional views of God’s nature. Yet, instead of expanding our thinking and our appreciation for divine mysteries, the book shrinks them quite dramatically by creating a deity so clearly influenced by human expectations of what God should be.”

Sin, Hell, Judgment, Salvation, the Incarnation,
Hierarchy and Authority in the Godhead, a Polynesian
Goddess and other assorted problems

Here are just a few of the many issues raised by The Shack:

- Young’s Papa character insists that sin is its own punishment. This distorts the reality of Hell and discounts eternal retribution for sin.

- Readers of The Shack are told that Jesus is only the best way to know God – not the only way.

- The Shack teaches that when Jesus went to the cross, God Almighty died there too. This is a heresy known as patripassianism. (In our private conversation I challenged Young about this but to no avail.)

- The Shack states that there is no structure or hierarchy within the Trinity and that the three personages of God are all equally subject to one another and to humans as well. I challenge fans of The Shack to open a Bible and try to make that square with the Scriptures!

- Young’s “Papa” character is suspiciously akin to a Polynesian/Hawaiian goddess who also happens to be known as “Papa.” When I quizzed Young on this he denied any knowledge of such a deity. However, the similarities with The Shack’s God character are stunning.

Now lets move on to perhaps the biggest concern.

Is Paul Young still a “Reconciling Universalist?”

I have noticed that in nearly every electronic or print media interview Paul Young volunteers that he is “not a universalist” and does so without ever being asked about it. But is he merely parsing words? Young is obviously nervous about the Christian world becoming convinced of any such thing. That said, it strikes me as odd that on a web page intended to answer critics of the book one of his editors, Wayne Jacobson, acknowledges that Young had previously embraced a form of universalism known as “universal reconciliation” and that this belief indeed appeared throughout the original manuscript. (Jacobson refers to it as “ultimate reconciliation” to avoid using the dreaded “U” word, universalism.)

Jacobson’s website states:

Does The Shack promote Ultimate Reconciliation (UR)?

“It does not. While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father’s love that has to be forced on the biblical text.

Since I don’t believe in UR and wholeheartedly embrace the finished product, I think those who see UR here, either positively or negatively are reading into the text. To me that was the beauty of the collaboration.”  (See: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html)

It is obvious that Young, Jacobson, and partner Brad Cummings all have a great deal to lose by not doing their best to debunk the book’s critics. They are very aware of where Young was theologically when he wrote the book. And that is the point isn’t it? It is the contents of the book (and presumably that of the forthcoming motion picture) that is being criticized here.

In the very beginning, I began to smell universalism in The Shack by simply reading it. These thoughts were more than confirmed through a very scholarly paper critiquing The Shack written by Dr. James De Young. Other leaders who have been critical of the book including Dr. Michael Youssef, Janet Parshall, Jan Markell and Dr. Larry DeBruyn have quoted Dr. De Young’s research – and for good reason.

Dr. De Young is a conservative professor at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. He is fluent in Greek and Hebrew and also teaches an elective on the early Church Fathers. He is well equipped to expose universalism from both biblical and historical perspectives. Perhaps equally important to our discussion here, is the fact that for several years both Dr. De Young and Paul Young were members of a theological discussion group or “think tank” known as the M3 Forum. In response to the bountiful amount of universalistic ideas found in The Shack, Dr. De Young has published a well-documented 39 page paper which can be accessed at: http://theshackreview.com. Once on the website you will also find several shorter documents and a discussion forum with remarks from readers, many of which defend The Shack. These comments serve to illustrate the tremendous confusion and lack of biblically thinking we see abounding inside the Christian community today.

After having Young tell me face to face that he was not a universalist, I asked him about Dr. De Young’s paper. He bristled at me and made several accusations about De Young which I now understand to be unfounded. Since the meeting with Paul Young, I had the opportunity to meet personally with Dr. De Young for several hours. In our meeting he shared another yet-to-be-released paper with me which he has written exposing Paul Young’s very bold defense of universal reconciliation. I can best describe the information in it as shocking. In fact, in the Spring of 2004, Paul gave one of the most complete defenses of universal reconciliation imaginable and reiterated this position on at least two occasions – the latest being in May-June 2007 – after writing The Shack.

Having had no previous indication that a staunch believer was in their midst, Paul Young’s revelations heralding universal reconciliation came as a complete blind-side to the M3 Forum members. After the group contested Young’s ideas, Dr. De Young gave a lengthy rebuttal to all of Paul’s points, branding Young’s position as heretical, citing a church council decision from the 6th century. After this event in 2004, Paul Young ceased participating in the M3 Forum.

In reflecting on my personal conversation with Young at Warner Pacific in October 2008, I wish I had asked specifically “Are you now or have you ever been an advocate of universal reconciliation?” (Note that classical universalists believe that all religions lead to the same place where as those who hold to universal reconciliation believe that all men <read that “ALL”> are already saved because of Jesus’ work on the cross.) This position purports that there is no penalty for sin, no literal hell and no need to accept Christ and repent of one’s sins. It dramatically undermines the work of the Church, evangelism and the core teachings of the New Testament. It is a satanic trap denying essential beliefs taught by Jesus, the Apostles and Bible believers throughout the Church Age. It is also exactly what Young believed in 2004. It is what he believed when he wrote The Shack and whether he believes it today or not you can be fairly certain that with millions of dollars at risk he is not about to re-edit The Shack to try and make theological corrections – at least without an act of God anyway. Again, it is not how skillfully Young may craft his words in denial of being a universalist or even what he may actually believe today that is the real question. It is the theological contents of The Shack that orthodox Christian critics are concerned with. Besides, universalism is but one of the many glaring unbiblical aspects of the book.

The REAL Problem

The bottom line concerning books, movies, television shows and other input like The Shack is that if our emotions rule and we fail to use scriptural discernment we can be taken captive by “evil imaginations”

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit… - Colossians 2:8

Knowing that the author actually portrayed himself as both Shack characters Missy (the violated-then-murdered six year-old) and her father, Mack (the one searching for God in a painful world) one’s heart surely breaks for what Paul Young has evidently endured in his lifetime. However, if readers fail to think biblically and allow only The Shack’s emotional storyline to grip them, they chance becoming prey to the very thing that I believe has duped many Christians into accepting and even endorsing the book. Empathy towards the author or his characters or becoming enamored by what many testify to as the positive real-world outcome of reading the book cannot trump one’s biblical analysis of the work. Young plays upon emotions constantly in the book and also as he lectures publically equating that because hearts are allegedly being touched that God must be giving approval to The Shack. When speaking to me personally, he emphasized the concept that results are all that matters. I responded that just because people testify that the book is somehow helping them, this does not necessarily mean that it is actually ordained by God. After all, God can use many means to reach people. God regularly uses disasters, accidents and tragedy of all sorts – even unorthodox or cultic books for His glory. This however doesn’t mean that God somehow deems heresy or terrible events as somehow good or positive in and of themselves.

The Nicest Heretic

Paul Young is perhaps the nicest heretic I have ever dealt with personally. That may sound flip but it’s true. He is a very nice guy who is presenting and defending some very dangerous even seductive heresies. As one who wears his emotions on his sleeve and who found himself being swayed by the heartbreaking storyline of The Shack, I must again caution. To allow a gripping story to cloud our ability to detect even the subtle theological errors strewn throughout its pages is exactly what Dr. Michael Youssef meant when he described The Shack as “a deep ditch that’s covered by beautiful landscape.”

The disturbing truth is that books like The Shack would never become a bestseller in the Christian world if Christians were on guard, thinking biblically and were willing to follow the Scriptures! In these dangerous days it is paramount that we actively develop “eyes of understanding” which constantly check everything by the Word of God – especially the stuff that claims to be of God. The Scripture implores us to prove or test all things (I Thessalonians 5:21-22) and this test can only be accomplished one way – by knowing the Bible and then utilizing what we know from it. Every Believer needs to be alert to the reality that in these last days deception is going to come at a rate never fathomed before. Mark my words, as time passes Satan is preparing to use unheralded and brazen trickery that will look and sound very spiritual, even Christian. The only hope we have to successfully avoid the traps is by prayerful, dedicated and aggressive study of God’s unchangeable Word. Otherwise, sooner or later we’ll find ourselves amongst a growing number from previously trustworthy evangelical circles that are heading straight for apostasy.

Jesus warned us in Matthew 24 that if the end days were not shortened by His return even the very elect would be deceived. Can we not assume that many who currently hang around the Church – and even some who preach or write books now popularly accepted in Christian circles – may in reality never endure to the end and are thus actually wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Source

Posted on Jun 17, 2009 | by Don Hinkle

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story contains explicit language concerning sexuality.

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (BP)–One of America’s largest Christian radio networks interrupted one of its programs in mid-show because it featured the controversial Seattle, Wash., pastor Mark Driscoll.

The Bott Radio Network then cancelled another interview with Driscoll that had been scheduled. The Bott network provides conservative Bible teaching, news and information to a potential audience of more than 40 million people in 10 states.

A May 18 interview with Driscoll, on the syndicated “Family Life” program hosted by Dennis Rainey, was halted in mid-broadcast after Bott Network founder Dick Bott learned Driscoll was the guest. Bott then cancelled another scheduled interview and ordered all Bott stations not to carry any programs featuring Driscoll.

However, Bott stressed that his respect for Rainey had not waned and that his radio network’s relationship with “Family Life” remains strong.

Bott said he made the decision because of what he saw as Driscoll’s penchant for using vulgarity in his sermons, especially his questionable interpretation of the Song of Solomon in a Nov. 18, 2007, sermon preached in Edinburgh, Scotland, and subsequently in a multi-part series entitled “The Peasant Princess.”

“I’ve seen a lot [about Driscoll] that’s on the Internet and that only makes the whole thing worse,” Bott said. “I’ve seen what he said at that church in Scotland and as far as I know he’s never addressed it in any repentant way or apologetically tried to explain why on earth he got so far off the reservation as to think that that’s the way to address people.”

Driscoll’s Edinburgh sermon included graphic detail to explain his idea that Song of Solomon 2:6 encourages husbands to stimulate their wives by touching private parts of their bodies. He said chapter 7 of the book gives biblical justification for spouses “stripping” for each other and quipped that while lovemaking is better than wine, “lovemaking is great with wine.”

During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solomon 2:3 as referring to oral sex and then said, “Men, I am glad to report to you that oral sex is biblical…. The wife performing oral sex on the husband is biblical. God’s men said, Amen. Ladies, your husbands appreciate oral sex. They do. So, serve them, love them well. It’s biblical. Right here. We have a verse. ‘The fruit of her husband is sweet to her taste and she delights to be beneath him.’”

Driscoll went on to tell an anecdote about a wife who he said won her husband to Christ by performing oral sex on him. Driscoll said he told her that giving him oral sex would be following the admonition of Scripture. A transcript of the sermon quotes Driscoll saying he told her, “1 Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness,” referring to oral sex. Verses 1 and 2 of that chapter, however, tell wives it is their “pure and reverent” conduct that will win their unbelieving husbands.

In response to the idea that the Song of Solomon is an allegory about the relationship between Jesus and the Church, Driscoll said: “If so, it is weird, because Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places. It’s bizarre, Jesus has his hand up my shirt. That doesn’t help the interpretation in any way. Now I’m gay … or highly troubled … or both.”

In a Q&A that accompanies “The Peasant Princess” series, Driscoll puts his approval of “anal sex” within marriage and the use of “sex toys.” In answering the question, “Can I perform anal sex on my wife?” Driscoll writes: “The body is not well suited for this so make sure your wife is agreeable, do your homework, be careful if she is willing, and do not go from this to normal intercourse since you will infect her with bacteria.” He also directs visitors to a website called Christian Nymphos, which he describes as run by “Christian women.” Essentially, it is an electronic bulletin board for individuals to list and describe for others their favorite sexual positions and techniques (e.g. the “Cowgirl”) under headings which include “Tame,” Erotic” and “Acrobatic.” Driscoll calls the use of sex toys “a matter of conscience” and says they “should be used together [with one's wife] for building oneness.” He points readers to what he calls a “Christian” website that will assist in selecting sex toys and adds that he does not endorse everything on the site, warning that images on some toy stores and websites may contain “pornographic images that can be disturbing.”

Driscoll’s sex advice offers no other scriptural basis for his views other than his interpretation of Song of Solomon. Nor does he discuss scriptural precepts that are at odds with his interpretation, like the Romans 1 warnings about anal sex — “natural for unnatural” — or the exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 4 about “sanctification and honor” in the marriage relationship, rather than “lustful passion, like the Gentiles.”

While no vulgar language was used by Driscoll in his interview with Rainey, Bott said he could not trust Driscoll, given his track record, and that he worried what might be said could damage or offend Bott’s reputation for offering family-friendly programming to a wide range of listeners.

“All I know is that when a man behaves badly he’s not a role model,” said Bott who was inducted into the National Religious Broadcasters Hall of Fame March 11. “And when a man’s mouth, you know, speaks of things that will embarrass people in the audience he certainly isn’t a gentleman.”

Scriptural admonitions about “unwholesome” speech (Ephesians 4:29) and “filthiness” and “coarse jesting” (Ephesians 5:4) should give pause to any Christian, especially preachers who stand to publicly proclaim the Gospel, Bott said.

“It (vulgar language) has no place in the pulpit and it has no place around your dinner table. I mean it has no place in the company in which you find yourself at any time. I mean vulgarity for goodness sakes, you know, if a person does that sort of thing and they try and justify it by being relevant, well, relevant to whom? I mean acting like a bum, talking like a bum, and frankly looking like a bum, how does that help the bum?”

Bott praised ministries like that of Ravi Zacharias who is reaching the lost for Christ, particularly those in their 20s and 30s. “He’s talking to college kids all over the nation and I’ll tell you you’re not going to hear him acting like a bum or talking like a bum or embarrassing anybody,” Bott said. “Where did a person ever get the idea that that’s the way to spread the Word of God or to change a life?”

Bott said he never thought he would see the day that decorum, good taste and being a proper role model would be issues in our churches, much less on Christian radio.

“No, I don’t think any of us would have ever supposed that we’d be sitting around trying to explain why same-sex marriage [for example] is absolutely a crazy idea … and it certainly is condemned in God’s Word in every aspect thereof,” Bott said. “No, we couldn’t have imagined anything [like this]. But in the same way then could I not imagine that somebody who is held up as some sort of a role model would stand in the pulpit and say the things that Mark Driscoll says and then kind of cover it with some sort of theological religiosity.”

He said some of Driscoll’s interpretations of Song of Solomon passages are extreme at best and he is concerned that Driscoll is being hailed as a role model and mentor to too many, particularly young pastors.

Driscoll is senior pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a city known for its secularism, growing it from nothing to more than 7,000 members on seven campuses across the city. Although his sermons are edgy and sometimes vulgar, his supporters defend him as an “inerrantist” and “complementarian,” suggesting he is a conservative who should be accepted for his like-mindedness about the Gospel. Driscoll is a five-point Calvinist whose often-disheveled appearance, willingness to minister to urbanites and participation in the Acts 29 church planting network has caught the attention of young pastors and church planters — including some in the Southern Baptist Convention. Driscoll’s sermons are downloaded from the Mars Hill Church website in droves and he frequently speaks at national conferences alongside Christian luminaries like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney.

The national media have taken notice as well. Zondervan pronounced him to be among the 50 most influential pastors in America. He has been the subject of extensive feature stories in the New York Times Magazine, Christianity Today and ABC TV’s “Nightline.”

Consider this passage from a New York Times Magazine article on Driscoll published earlier this year: “An ‘Under 17 Requires Adult Permission’ warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: ‘Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?’ Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: ‘I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, laughing, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ The audience bursts out laughing. Next Pastor Mark is warning them about lust and exalting the confines of marriage, one hand jammed in his jeans pocket while the other waves his Bible. Even the skeptical viewer must admit that whatever Driscoll’s opinion of certain recreational activities, he has the coolest style and foulest mouth of any preacher you’ve ever seen.”

Bott is not alone in his objection. Driscoll’s vulgarity also has caught the eye of fellow Calvinist John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in California, who criticized Driscoll for mishandling Song of Solomon, first in a private letter to Driscoll, then later in a scathing four-part critique entitled “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” that was posted in April on MacArthur’s ministry Web site, www.shepherdsfellowship.org.

In a letter to Driscoll, MacArthur encouraged Driscoll to take seriously the standard of holiness to which Scripture holds pastors.

“(Y)ou can(not) make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads — especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display,” MacArthur wrote. “At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions, we much be in the world but not of it…. It’s vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness.”

At one point in his four-part critique, MacArthur characterized Driscoll’s handling of the book: “This treatment of Solomon’s Song is a molestation of the book, tearing off its God-designed veil, publicly defiling its purity and holding it up for leering and laughter.”

Controversy about Driscoll among Southern Baptists surfaced in February 2009 when he was a featured speaker at a student conference held by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The issue of Driscoll’s methods and behavior, however, stretch as far back as 2007.

In a Sept. 21, 2007, story in Christianity Today, Driscoll said he had learned a lot from Ed Stetzer, who at the time was director of the North American Mission Board’s Center for Missional Research but now is director of research for LifeWay Christian Resources. Stetzer was not interviewed by the Christianity Today reporter because a NAMB spokesman told the publication NAMB had “controversial differences” with some of Driscoll’s “views and practices.”

Stetzer, who once served on the board of Acts 29, has since spoken out in defense of Driscoll, specifically in behalf of his teaching on sexuality.

In a Feb. 13, 2009, post on his LifeWay blog, Stetzer wrote: “And yes, some people won’t like frank talk about sexuality (or they will think it is too frank). However, I think frank talk on sexuality is essential. I am not going to defend everything Mark says about it, or how he says it, but I definitely believe most of our churches need to teach more on the subject.” Stetzer also defended Southeastern Seminary’s decision to invite Driscoll to speak on campus.

That decision caught the attention of the Missouri Baptists Laymen’s Association, a conservative watchdog group headed by former SBC Executive Committee member Roger Moran of Troy, Mo. Earlier this year, the MBLA published a document that, in part, addressed the Driscoll controversy. It noted how Stetzer referred to Driscoll as one of the country’s most influential pastors — particularly among young pastors, reporting that his podcasts are downloaded at a rate of more than 1 million a year.

“This goes to the heart of the issue and explains with absolute clarity why Driscoll was the featured speaker at the Seminary’s ‘Preview Day,’” Moran wrote. “Mark Driscoll is an icon among many young SBC want-to-be pastors and church planters. Moreover, Driscoll and his fellow Acts 29 church planters are portrayed as the elite ’special forces’ of American Christianity.”

The debate over Driscoll and Acts 29 exploded among Missouri Baptists in 2006 and 2007 — not only about Driscoll’s language but also his and Acts 29’s view of alcohol consumption. In 2008, the Missouri Baptist Convention Executive Board voted overwhelming to no longer use convention missions dollars to fund any church plant affiliated with Acts 29. The Missouri controversy is documented in the MBLA publication, Viewpoint, which has been distributed among Southern Baptist churches in Missouri and will be available to messengers attending the SBC’s June 23-24 annual meeting in Louisville, Ky.
–30–
Don Hinkle is editor of The Pathway (mbcpathway.com), newsjournal of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Recently, it is has come to my attention a push within the Christian community for all of us to forget the blood of Christ and call upon the blood of the saints who have died for Christ.  Let me see if I understand this.  We should pray to the Martyrs, and call forth the blood of all those who have been martyred for faith upon our country against all the schemes of the evil one that would harm our people.  Not for me.  I would rather depend upon the blood of the Lamb, the power of the Cross, the power of the Word, and the name of Jesus.  Revelation 12:11 says, “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb,” not by the blood of the Martyrs.  Let common sense come back to the Church, Lord.

Written by Bryan Hupperts.

There once was a young person named Little Red Riding Hood who lived on the edge of a large forest full of endangered owls and  rare plants that would probably provide a cure for cancer if only someone took the time to study them.

Red Riding Hood lived with a nurture giver whom she sometimes referred to as “mother”, although she didn’t mean to imply by this term that she would have thought less of the person if a close biological link did not in fact exist. Nor did she intend to denigrate the equal value of nontraditional households, although she was sorry if this was the impression conveyed.

One day her mother asked her to take a basket of organically  grown fruit and mineral water to her grandmother’s house. “But  mother, won’t this be stealing work from the unionized people who have struggled for years to earn the right to carry all packages
between various people in the woods?” Red Riding Hood’s mother assured her that she had called the union boss and received a special compassionate mission exemption form.

“But mother, aren’t you oppressing me by ordering me to do this?” Red Riding Hood’s mother pointed out that it was impossible for womyn to oppress each other, since all womyn were equally oppressed until all womyn were free.

“But mother, then shouldn’t you have my brother carry the basket, since he’s an oppressor, and should learn what it’s like to be oppressed?” And Red Riding Hood’s mother explained that her brother was attending a special rally for animal rights, and besides, this wasn’t stereotypical womyn’s work, but an empowering deed that would help engender a feeling of community.

“But won’t I be oppressing Grandma, by implying that she’s sick and hence unable to independently further her own selfhood?” But Red Riding Hood’s mother explained that her grandmother wasn’t actually sick or incapacitated or mentally handicapped in any way,
although that was not to imply that any of these conditions were inferior to what some people called “health”.

Thus Red Riding Hood felt that she could get behind the idea of delivering the basket to her grandmother, and so she set off.

Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were in fact intolerable competitors. Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that in a truly classless society all marginalized peoples would be able to “come out” of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models.

On her way to Grandma’s house, Red Riding Hood passed a woodchopper, and wandered off the path, in order to examine  some flowers. She was startled to find herself standing before a Wolf, who asked her what was in her basket. Red Riding Hood’s teacher had warned her never to talk to strangers, but she was confident in taking control of her own budding sexuality, and chose to dialogue with the Wolf.

She replied, “I am taking my Grandmother some healthful snacks in a gesture of solidarity.”

The Wolf said, “You know, my dear, it isn’t safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone.”

Red Riding Hood said, “I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop an alternative and yet entirely valid world view. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I would prefer to be on my way.”

Red Riding Hood returned to the main path, and proceeded towards her Grandmother’s house. But because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the Wolf knew of a quicker route to Grandma’s house.

He burst into the house and ate Grandma, a course of action affirmative of his nature as a predator. Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist gender role notions, he put on Grandma’s nightclothes, crawled under the bedclothes, and awaited developments.

Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said, “Grandma, I have brought you some cruelty free snacks to salute you in your role of wise and nurturing matriarch.”

The Wolf said softly “Come closer, child, so that I might see you.” Red Riding Hood said, “Grandma, what big eyes you have!”

“You forget that I am optically challenged.”

“And Grandma, what an enormous, what a fine nose you have.”

“Naturally, I could have had it fixed to help my acting career, but I didn’t give in to such societal pressures, my child.”

“And Grandma, what very big, sharp teeth you have!”

The Wolf could not take any more of these specist slurs, and, in a reaction appropriate for his accustomed milieu, he leaped out of  bed, grabbed Little Red Riding Hood, and opened his jaws so wide that she could see her poor Grandmother cowering in his belly.

“Aren’t you forgetting something?” Red Riding Hood bravely shouted. “You must request my permission before proceeding to a new level of intimacy!” The Wolf was so startled by this statement that he loosened his grasp on her.

At the same time, the woodchopper burst into the cottage, brandishing an ax.

“Hands off!” cried the woodchopper.

“And what do you think you’re doing?” cried Little Red Riding Hood. “If I let you help me now, I would be expressing a lack of confidence in my own abilities, which would lead to poor self esteem and lower achievement scores on college entrance exams.”

“Last chance, sister! Get your hands off that endangered species! This is an FBI sting!” screamed the woodchopper, and when Little Red Riding Hood nonetheless made a sudden motion, he sliced off her head.

“Thank goodness you got here in time,” said the Wolf. “The brat and her grandmother lured me in here. I thought I was a goner.”
“No, I think I’m the real victim, here,” said the woodchopper. “I’ve been dealing with my anger ever since I saw her picking those protected flowers earlier. And now I’m going to have such a trauma. Do you have any aspirin?”

“Sure,” said the Wolf.

“Thanks.”

“I feel your pain,” said the Wolf, and he patted the woodchopper
on his firm, well padded back, gave a little belch, and said
“Do you have any Maalox?”

(c) Bryan Hupperts – www.sheeptrax.com

In the Second Great Awakening, bizarre manifestations of ungodly origin appeared.  The focus here is not the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, but some of the ungodly manifestations originated from the Devil.  

For example, Treeing the devil was a bizarre attraction. The individual and even groups, usually got down on all fours and barked up the side of a tree. The person was always followed by the crowd, and they shouted and encouraged the actions with “Sic Satan, sic ‘em, sic ‘em.” It was recommended that dancing and “holy” leap frogging would relieve the condition.  Another author wrote about the bizarre manifestation of treeing the Devil at the Second Great Awakening this way, “The Jerks were often accompanied by the barks, a disgracing operation in which the victim would take the position of a canine beast, move about on all fours, growl, snap the teeth, and bark, sometimes at the foot of a tree in a performance called ‘treeing the devil.’”
Another example was the exotic behavior when women fell to the ground in gross, indecent sexual positions. Some skeptics wrote off the activities because these were only “ignorant, frontier, hill billies,” but the evil spiritual results could not be denied.