An interesting evangelical trait is to brand books that convey concepts already embraced by the popular evangelical culture as bold and prophetic and groundbreaking. That’s what Peterson does here. I must admit that I am not a sufficiently adequate historian to know what Pilgrim’s Progress did for that generation, and I wonder what Peterson thinks The Shack will do for ours.

It has sold so well because it expresses in fiction form the contemporary evangelical mindset. Its popularity rests not in its presentation of some theological truth that we need to embrace but in conveying so graphically what we already believe.

We find God reduced to a jiving black woman. How more politically correct could he make God out to be? I am not suggesting that God is white. However, neither do I find Scripture characterizing God as being hip and cool.

And no doubt Young wants us to get in touch with God’s feminine side, even though Scripture portrays Him as a male. Yes, He can relate to us as a nursing mother at times, but if this inclination represented the essence of who He is, the Bible would have presented Him as a woman.

I had a professor at NYU that observed that, “God created man in His own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.” Though this view of God does not reflect the one given in Scripture, it does match the God of today’s evangelical community.

This portrayal of God constitutes just one aspect of The Shack that corresponds to contemporary Christian culture. The whole book might be considered a commentary on the current evangelical mindset. Note, for example, the distain for the church. Even the format, the narrative, reflects the contemporary culture.

Therefore, what the book serves to do for us is further petrify us in our unbiblical view of God and life. The book is not ground-breaking but ground-hardening.

This acceptance of The Shack despite its unbiblical orientation reveals another facet of the evangelical approach to life. Of course, as with the secular world, the hallmark of contemporary evangelical thinking is acceptance. God accepts unconditionally, and so should we. Therefore, even though some aspects of the book might miss the scriptural mark, we are not of the narrow-minded, Pharisaical orientation that makes an issue of such minutia.

Rather, the wizened response of the thoughtful evangelical reader looks past those theological misrepresentations and reflects, “I believe I understand what he is trying to say.” In other words, if his intentions are good, we can overlook some heresy for the sake of making the point.

This approach to sanctioning fiction or nonfiction literature makes for a toxic theological climate. In our commitment not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have left the baby to wallow in some very polluted water.

But the worst issue resides in our failure to apply this spirit of understanding and acceptance and tolerance evenly. While we have all he toleration in the world for someone advocating heresies compatible with our culture, secular and evangelical, we extend no such latitude to those who are out of step with the culture.

When is the last time you heard someone say, “I don’t agree with some of the positions they take at Bob Jones University, but I think I know where they are coming from”? Contemporary evangelicals possess the capacity to swallow the heretical camel to their left, but strain at the gnat to the right.

This bias in toleration toward the left relentlessly shifts our thinking in that direction. Just as the frog in the kettle, the baby is not aware of how toxic the bathwater has gotten even though it has inflicted on him a life-threatening disease.

In a large sense, losing wisdom is tantamount to losing one’s mind. The essence of wisdom is the capacity to respond to the practical issues of life effectively. Knowing how to deal with life is the ultimate function of the mind. Whatever else our mind does, if it can’t do that our lives will be messed up.

In this practical sense our society has lost its mind. We lack the wisdom to deal effectively with the practical issues of life. A glaring example is found in the choice of a President totally lacking in experience for the job. I hope President Obama succeeds, and he might. However, even if he does, it was still a foolish risk to elect someone without the necessary qualifications. A person might spend all his money playing the lottery. Even if he wins, it was still a foolish idea.

Other examples of our societal loss of wisdom abound. Our economy is out of control, and no one seems to know how to fix it. More government spending seems to be a recipe for long-term decline rather than a solution. We lack the wisdom to establish and maintain marriages and families. We have more marriage and relational support than any time in our history, and yet we have never done worse. In fact, it’s difficult to think of a major facet of our culture at which we are not failing—where we do not manifest a lack of wisdom.

What is the cause of this bankruptcy of wisdom? Both David (Psalm 111:10) and Solomon (Proverbs 9:10) tell us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. One implication of this assertion is that every major field of study and every major component of culture requires a biblical beginning or foundation.

Ethics, for example, must be founded on scriptural wisdom. If our ethical system is built on the sand of our own understanding, our moral edifice will collapse. Sanctioning abortion, celebrating homosexuality, and having school children put condoms on bananas represent just some of the more flagrant examples of our ethical ruin.

Psychology requires a biblical foundation. Some Christians are hostile toward psychology; however, the problem is not with psychology (literally a study of the soul) but with bad psychology, that is, psychology not founded on biblical principles. This “we can do it ourselves” psychology has produced a full array of misguided remedies from primal scream to the bankrupt self-esteem movement.

Likewise, every field of study and endeavor, philosophy, science, etc., requires biblical underpinnings. That foundation leads to wisdom and its lack to foolishness. Our post-Christian culture, being too wise to need the wisdom of God, now wallows in its own foolishness and failure.

What led us to abandon the fountain of wisdom for the polluted waters of our own devices? For the answer we must go back to the assertion of David and Solomon that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A failure to fear the Lord cuts us loose from the guidance of Scripture to follow our own impulses. The recognition that we cannot abandon God’s wisdom and get away with it keeps us on track. The absence of that fear results in an arrogance of intellectual self-sufficiency.

The lack of fear of the Lord by our educational system, news and entertainment media, government, and other elements of our society, has led to the abandonment of His principles that has produced the cultural foolishness that is destroying our nation.

Hopefully, our failures on every front will turn us to the fear of the Lord and the principles of His Word.

For those who think that fear is always bad, think about how different the “stimulus package” would be if Congress feared the Lord.

What if Jesus, clothed in His majesty, was seated at the committee table as bills were being formulated or at the front of the House and Senate when they were being debated and voted on?

According to Rev. 1, the scene would look like this. “His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.” (Re 1:12-16 NIV)

When He walked into the room, they would probably not need a gavel to call the session to order. The response of the Apostle John is recorded in the next verse, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.” (Re 1:17 NIV) I would say that this response conveys some fear, wouldn’t you? If the apostle closest to Jesus at the Last Supper, the one who stayed near Him at His trial and at the cross, responded with such dread, how much more might those who have substantially more reason to fear?

Imagine the scene in the Senate if Jesus walked in at the beginning of the session on the stimulus package!! Sen. Barney Frank suddenly remembered another meeting that took precedent. However, he got trampled while trying to get through the door and ended up in the emergency room.

As the senator arose to introduce the bill for the funding of abortion, the flaming eyes turned toward him and a quavering voice was heard saying, “Mr. Chairman, we have decided to send that bill back to committee.”
The sponsor of the pro-homosexual bills could not be found. A colleague reported that he had to use the restroom.

By this time, fear of the “Presence” in the front of the room had cleared heads and focused minds to the awareness of their ethical responsibility to make decisions for the benefit of the country and not their self-serving agendas. This led to the tabling of the political payback bills such as those funding ACORN.

The “pork” bills began to be introduced, but when the a senator began to list reasons why these were really for the benefit of the country, it appeared that Person in the front of the room was about to stand to His feet. The debate stopped immediately and the remaining 52 senators, just one over the quorum, unanimously voted down the bill.

It was now 9:30am, and it appeared that all of the discussion on the stimulus package ready for discussion had been addressed. Senator Harry Reid looked anxiously over at the glorified Christ and asked nervously, “Do you plan to be joining us tomorrow.” His burning gaze turned toward Senator Reid as He pronounced, “I plan to be here every day.” Senator Reid wilted under the gaze and with the all his remaining strength mumbled that the committees had a lot of work to do and that the session was adjourned.

The reality is that Jesus is at every session of the Senate and House. But because the members of Congress cannot see Him, most do not fear Him. Just think of the difference that it would make if they did. That would provide that ultimate stimulus for our nation.

In Proverbs 1:7, Solomon teaches us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”

Consider the importance of knowledge to your life and wellbeing. If fear really is the fountainhead of knowledge, fear is of vital importance—it is a source of great blessing.

But what is the connection between fear and knowledge?

The relationship between the two begins with the unflattering reality that we are all inclined to pursue the various forms of self-gratification. John summarizes these as the lust of the flesh and eyes and the pride of life. We all crave the good feelings that stem from these sources.

Sometimes this gratification is legitimate. A good meal or making love with one’s spouse are God-given sources of pleasure.

However, we tend not to be satisfied with self-gratification only when God says it is okay. We desire it whenever we can get it. People tend to eat too much or desire pleasure from someone who is not their spouse, even it that entails an indiscrete analysis of the anatomy of an indiscrete NFL cheerleader.

Since God’s Word tells us where those boundaries are, why do we need fear to gain knowledge? We can get knowledge right out of the Bible, and we can also glean it from observing what does and does not work in life.

Well, that’s true as far as it goes. That is the way it should be. However, this does not consider the human malady cited above. The reality is that our thirst for gratification incites us to rationalize.

I can easily give you five reasons why I should eat that second piece of chocolate cake. The hostess made it especially for me, and I want her to know how much I appreciate it. Or the second coming may occur tomorrow, in which case I would have missed the opportunity needlessly. Etc.

If they sound like a stretch, I guarantee you that both of us have employed rationalizations more idiotic than those and really believed them to be valid at the time. And as time goes on those irrational rationalizations become well-established principles for living.

In other words, we have corrupted knowledge. We are guiding our lives based on lies devised by our rationalization and that of other people. Our favorite Bible teachers are those who can validate our rationalizations with Scripture.

This is where fear helps us. It keeps us from trifling with God’s Word. If we really believe that God deals severely with those who bend His teachings to enable self-gratification, we tend to be more honest with His Word. In other words, we develop a worldview based on genuine knowledge rather than self-serving lies.

In contemporary society, when Christians legitimize watching movies containing nudity or assert that it is okay to be angry with God, they manifest a lot of truth bending that reveals the absence of fear.

Though fear may be an unpleasant emotion, it would clear their heads, straighten out their worldviews, and save them a lot of trouble in the long run.

Next week’s topic addresses another benefit of fear.

FDR told us that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” For the approximately 418,500 American who died in WWII, his assurance rang hollow. They did have something to fear as did their families.

Fear is not necessarily a psychological illness but rather can be an indication of health. The person with the “No fear” sticker on his truck probably misses that point. But most Americans do as well.

On the eve of the inauguration of a new President who will head up the most liberal government this country has ever known at a time of great national peril, my greatest fear today is the lack of fear among Americans over the condition and future of our country.

Most conservatives think that we are headed in a bad direction, but they convey an underlying attitude that ultimately things will come around. It’s sort of like watching a movie. The situation tends to get scary in the middle, but no need to get scared because you know that it will all work out in the end.

What is the basis for this confidence? Some would say, “Well, it always has worked out.” They overlook the reality that history, including recent history, is full of accounts of populations that have fallen prey to terrible plights.

Others place their confidence in our national character. “We’re Americans. We are survivors. We always have and always will.” To quote the investment disclaimer, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” A case could be made for the position that we are not the nation we used to be, morally, economically, and in many other categories, and therefore we have no basis for expecting the same outcome as before.

Some place their hope in the Lord. We need not fear because we are trusting in God. I have even had Christians get angry with me and label me as faithless because of my fear. However, I fear because I do believe. Scripture tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the beginning of knowledge.

Many evangelicals are not fearful because they have concluded that the fear of the Lord means “reverential awe.” As one well-known Christian writer stated, “We should never fear God.”

However, the biblical words related to the fear of the Lord are the plain old Hebrew and Greek words for fear. Many skilled expositors have tried to make the fear of the Lord mean something else, but it does not.

Others set up a straw man by asking, “Are you suggesting that we should be cringing in God’s presence? I had a wonderful father. When I was playing it straight I was perfectly comfortable in his presence. However, when I was living in disobedience I was fearful. That is what Scripture is telling us about our relationship with God.

In 1965 Billy Graham wrote a book entitled World Aflame. In reading the chapter on the sinful condition of America, his wife, Ruth commented, “Billy, if God doesn’t come soon and bring judgment upon the United States, He’s going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!”

Our nation is far more wicked today than in 1965. However, we are far less concerned about God’s judgment than was Ruth Graham. Why?

Sometimes fear is a phobia, a sickness. Sometimes a lack of fear indicates pathology. I would challenge you to read the 27 passages in Scripture that speak of the fear of the Lord and decide whether our lack of fear indicates whether we are healthy or sick.

This logic fails because if we had another Ronald Reagan we would be winning this election.

But an even greater flaw in this rationale resides in the reality that Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was well-intentioned but inept. Barack Obama is neither well-intentioned nor inept. Therefore, while Jimmy Carter opened the door for the election of Ronald Reagan, if elected Barak Obama will nail the door shut on elections of conservatives in the future.

How so?
First, he will seriously curtail free speech. Michael Barone documents this inclination of Barak Obama and today’s Democratic party in his article entitled “The Coming Liberal Thugocracy.”  I would urge you to read this entire article.

Barone’s observations drive home the reality that the new Democratic left is militant in its beliefs and tactics. If Barack is elected and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid remain in control of the Congress, we can expect to find the same political correctness currently existing on college campuses to be imposed on society as a whole.

The academic world uses their degree-granting power to force its will on our young people. Under a Barak presidency we can expect legislation that will empower our legal and judicial system to deal with those who do not adhere to the party line.

Banks have already experienced coercion of this nature in the imposition of Congressional social engineering on their loan policies, which has produced our present financial crisis. If Obama is elected we can expect such tactics to strike closer to the doors of our homes.

One such move already in the mill resides in the reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” This will effectively silence the voice of talk radio. That news outlet can be credited with conservative political success in recent years. Without it, conservative success at the polls will be very difficult.

Yet another initiative we can expect from a President Obama and an empowered Democratic Congress consist of extending free reign and added financial support to ACORN and similar organizations that have the objective of loading the ballot box toward the left.

Imagine an organization that receives millions from the federal government, which has the sole mission of registering Democrats, especially those with radical left leanings. That requires no imagination at all because this is what we have now. However, with greater freedom and support, the playing field will be tilted even more steeply against conservatives.

Make no mistake about it, even the current efforts of ACORN are bringing in many thousands of voters to the left side of the political spectrum, numbers sufficient to change election outcomes.

The combination of silencing talk radio and other aspects of free speech along with stuffing the ballot box will make it practically impossible for conservatives to win elections. These efforts will be aided and abetted by the mainstream media, making it almost impossible for the truth to be known and objections to be raised. This would mean that the left would become more entrenched and more empowered and more radical.

In other words, Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Carter brought us Reagan. Obama, if elected, will take us down a one-way dead-end street from which there will be no return. Pray fervently that God will spare us from that fate.

Why has truth fallen? Several forces in our society work hard to knock it down and prevent it from getting back up. One is communication by sound-bite. Whether a newscast or presidential debate, you only get at most a two minute treatment of any subject. In the Bill O’Reilly type format, you might get four minutes comprised of two people yelling over each other. We get no thoughtful, factual development of a topic. The Vice Presidential “debate” last night consisted largely of accusations being made and denied and countercharges being leveled. Just by listening you could learn practically nothing, and to make matters worse you would probably come away believing errors.

For this reason such an event has deteriorated into a “gotcha” game, the highest hope being to hurl a one-liner that will zap the opponent such as the memorable, “and you’re no John F. Kennedy.” Substance comprises a small part of the exercise. We all remember the downfall of Richard Nixon in one of the early television debates. His makeup was not done well. Then there is the issue of style over substance. I recall hearing an announcement at church indicating that the speaker for an upcoming men’s retreat was “one of the great communicators of our day.” It struck me at the time that the concern was not over his content by how well he could communicate it.

This preference for delivery over data hits at the heart of our current election. Barack Obama communicates well. The facts related to his background, platform, and tactics mean little to a majority of the American public. We would rather hear lies said well than truths said poorly. At the heart of the problem resides the difficulty in discovering truth. Truth does not come easy, especially in a world in which people profit from distorting and hiding it. Even in studying the Bible, a book containing pure truth, we have to work hard to grasp the truth. Many have drawn erroneous conclusions from Scripture.

Therefore, in a culture that implements strategies that serve to muddy the waters rather than expose the truth, we have little hope of finding it. Our culture reflects that of Isaiah’s day. “Justice is turned back, And righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” (Isaiah 59:14) Note the bitter byproducts that accompany the fall of truth.  The recovery of our society from its economic, political, moral, and other woes must begin with a thirst for truth that will lead us to adopt methodologies that will reveal it.

My purpose in this post is to express the following concerns related to this Christian response:

• “A Common Word between Us and You” keeps referring to a line from the Koran regarding God which asserts that “He has no associates.” That sounds very much like a repudiation of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Though this term is discussed, this discussion does little to assuage concerns that this language might constitute a rejection of Christ’s deity. We must have their assurance that this is not the intent of this language before we proceed. We must insist on that as a condition for working together.

• The “Loving God and Neighbor Together” response extends a groveling apology about the Crusades— a misguided attempt at humility. As we look over the history of Islam and Christianity, we have done substantially better than they have in conveying the love of God and neighbor. Had they begun by owning up to their shortcomings, perhaps this response might find warrant. They did not. Therefore, this apology leaves the impression that Christianity has failed in the area of love while Islam has succeeded. Though the church’s record is stained, it has done a far better job of manifesting love of God and neighbor than any other institution in history. Therefore, such an impression impugns the name of Jesus, the Lord of the church.

• This misrepresentation of the record leads to my third objection to the Christian response. “A Common Word between Us and You,” which recounts the commitment of Islam to love of God and neighbor, fails to address the deafening silence of the Islamic community in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their religion. If they believe in love of God and neighbor, where is their condemnation of their Islamic brothers who are murdering innocent people in cold blood, and continue to do so? Where is their disassociation from them and from their behavior? Though there has been some denunciation, it has been far too weak to be meaningful. I remember the memorial service convened in Washington, DC, after 9/11, which included a Muslim cleric. I waited for any repudiation at all of the horrendous deeds that have been perpetrated in the name of Allah. None were forthcoming. Nor does this document seem to notice the continuing atrocities. To write this letter to us without first addressing that issue, and without addressing it in the letter, represents the grossest form of insincerity, especially since the bloodletting in the name of Allah continues. And what of the Muslim nations that make becoming a Christian a crime or the inequities of sharia law or the widespread preaching of hate? This unloving behavior that seems to be an integral part of the practice of Islam in much of today’s Muslim world should have been addressed in any Christian response. Where was it? What is the point of dialogue about love if they are not willing to display love of neighbor by confronting the ongoing, widespread destruction of neighbor by their fellow Muslims? The failure of the Christians responding to their letter to address this issue constitutes a betrayal by them of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who suffer mercilessly at the hands of Muslims with no significant outcry from the Muslim community or its leadership.

It is my hope that stronger evangelical leadership will rise up to provide a better response to this offer to work together extended by Islamic clerics.

They are not the only ones dispersing your money. Congress and the President recently approved a plan to stimulate the economy by passing out money to selective groups of people. Financial experts almost universally agree that this free money program will not help the economy. However, it does serve to buy favor for those distributing it. It is redistribution of wealth to gain political favor.

This practice is problematic on several counts. First, at root it is dishonest. There is something essentially unethical about the government using its power to forcibly extract that which belongs to one person and give it to another. The so-called progressive income tax might be viewed as unethical for the same reason. However, the current practice of redistribution of wealth is even more egregious. It is one thing to force those who make more to pay disproportionately more in order to maintain highways and armies and make other expenditures that represent the legitimate role of government. However, it is quite another matter to take that which has been coerced from those who make more and hand it over to those whom the government deems worthy.

In addition to being unethical, this practice seems to be patently unconstitutional. Though a majority on today’s Supreme Court may not view it as such, one suspects that if the writers of that document could be resurrected, they might consigned to the stocks for robbery those implicated in this practice.

This practice is also problematic because it is destructive to our economy. It is the opposite of supply-side economics, taking wealth from those who create jobs, which leads to a decline in tax revenues, which leads to higher taxes to make up the difference, which leads to further decline in tax revenues, and so on.

Yet another problem with the redistribution of wealth for political gain is its tendency toward escalation to the point of ruination. This is evident in the Democratic primaries. We find candidates seeking to outdo each other in the amount of handouts that they promise. They have already passed totals that our economy can sustain. They are bankrupting us in order to gain office.

However, our greatest concern should not be with the problems of this practice but with its political effectiveness. The fact that it works tells us that many of the American people either can’t see the dishonesty and destructiveness of this political approach, or that they don’t care that it is dishonest and destructive.

If they can’t see its problems, we have finally become a nation too poorly educated to function as a democracy. If they don’t care, we have become a nation too perverse to function as a democracy. I would be interested in your perspective on which of these problems is making this political gimmick into an effective tool.

In our next blog our plan is to consider the cultural and spiritual roots of this problem.

Living in that environment would alter our demeanor. We would act with greater seriousness and intensity.

This sobriety and intensity is found especially in a leader, who has responsibility for the welfare of those under him. He must maintain an attitude that gets their attention, make them aware of danger, and that motivates them to carry out orders.

“Would you mind bringing some ammunition with you, that is, if its not too much of a burden,” is going to get people killed. Running out of ammo in the middle of the battle because in was inconvenient to carry would spell disaster.

Jesus lived in a combat environment. Scripture tells us that His enemies were looking for a way to kill Him, and they would succeed. More sobering yet was the fact that Jesus had to die to win.

The battle He was fighting was not with the Jewish leaders or the Roman soldiers, both of which would participate in His death. Rather, He was engaged in a cosmic struggle with Satan and the forces of darkness for the souls of human beings.

He asserted that He was meek (Matthew 11:29), but, as previously noted, meekness is not gentleness or mildness, nor was that His demeanor. Rather, He conveyed the intensity and directness of a leader in combat.

As such, He was no Mr. Rogers. His interaction with His disciples resembled that of a Marine Corps drill sergeant. He knew that the welfare of His disciples depended on their attentiveness and obedience.

Scripture often reminds us that we are also involved in warfare. Scripture refers to us as soldiers and calls us to fight. We, too, are also dealing with matters of eternal life and death.

This being the case, living in a combat zone as we do, it would be dangerous to think that gentleness and mildness should be our normal operating mode, as many evangelicals do. Mr. Rogers cannot be our model. This demeanor does not convey the seriousness of the situation. It does not get people to stop deadly behavior. They does not motivate people to life-saving action.

For example, gentleness does not get done the job of discipleship. “I know that for the last three weeks have talked about the need for you to be in Scripture, and you have not made it yet. Don’t let that discourage you. Maybe you will get to it this week.”

How about, “Friend, do you know that the Devil is out to destroy you. You have failed to get to your Bible for two weeks, now. You had better get to it this week or you could be in real trouble. You are wondering around the battlefield without your steel helmet and your weapon. You are going to get yourself killed. Tell me what is so much more important.”

Sure, there are occasions for gentleness, and we see Jesus convey that quality at times. But most of the time He was tough, and we need to be as well if we are going to develop a mature, effective army of Christian soldiers.

Gentleness and mildness are producing spiritual wimps that are losing the battle with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. We could use an evangelical reformation that will replace gentleness with gumption.