Thought on “Heresy Hunter” Book Reviews

I am a book critic. I have about 250 reviews up on Amazon. I am a top 1000 book reviewer in the US and a top 100 reviewer in Canada (where I am originally from). I am also an Amazon Vine Reviewer, meaning that I’ve been asked by Amazon to receive books and products, often in advance of publication, for review. I probably receive about 100 offers outside of that a year from Publishers and Authors asking if they can send me their book in return for my review.

I might certainly have an opinion of a particular author based upon previous works or previous reviews before I read the book, but integrity demands before I review a product that I actually use it or read the book. Not all reviewers do that. Some just scan it and there are even some who read all the other other reviews and then just do a summary.

I decided a long time ago I’d rather be a VOICE than an ECHO. It means I produce reviews much more slowly than others and it usually means my review is longer than most other reviews. It also means I try to give the reader of my review not only my opinion but enough background of where I’m coming from in my opinion that they know enough that if they don’t agree with my position they know that it’s influencing my evaluation of the book .

When I read “reviews” from anyone, (not just heresy hunters) who admit they haven’t read the book and who then go on to judge the book based upon their evaluation of the author’s character, that “reviewer” loses all credibility with me. That behavior is the literary and intellectual equivilent of the old party game “telephone” where people whisper a phrase down the line and see what comes out.

There still exists a very strong faction with fundamentalism and evangelicalism that defends “orthodoxy” many of whom couldn’t define orthodoxy if their lives depended upon it and who know more about what they are against than what they are for. It still saddens me. Principled disagreement is fine. I do that in my reviews when it’s necessary, but I try to separate that from the character of the writer and if I can, I balance it with what I see that is positive and helpful. If I can’t do that with a book, more often than not I’ll just decline to do the review unless I think there’s a valid reason to provide it because of some legitimate danger to the reader if they don’t discern something about an issue.

Anyway, just so others understand, I used to be something of a “heresy hunter” in my younger days. I wasn’t afraid to voice disagreement and attack others in this manner from the pulpit or in discussions with congregants or other pastors. Doing graduate level work and self-study on critical thinking and learning to identify logical fallicies as well, I think, as just desiring to experience the love of Christ and realizing I couldn’t experience that as well when I was not demonstrating love to others (disagreement is OK, it’s how we disagree that is a matter of love), has led me on this different path. I still have to go back at times and re-evaluate and even adjust my thinking and words from time to time.

If most “heresy hunters” put the effort into examining themselves, I’m convinced, their tone toward others would change. What saddens me in addition when I read that type of stuff, apart from reminding me of my own past, is the realization of how unhappy many of these folks must be. Their activities and “reviews” usually tell me more about them than the book they haven’t read.

Thought on “Heresy Hunters”

Look carefully at “heresy hunters” who discredit and label people with whom they disagree. Look carefully at their methods and ask if they appear more concerned about abstract truth than relationship with the “Truth.”  The further the gap between the two, the more hollow the words ring.

Thoughts on Systematic Theology



The material below was posted by me in a thread and a friend asked me to put it up as a separate note.  The tone is conversational and not as precise as something like this should probably be, but here it is. 

One of my major themes that I’m learning and observing (after years and years of doing it myself) is that Systematic Theologies (which formally began with Calvin’s Institutes) are often as influenced or in some cases even more influenced by… the logical framework that is constructed to create doctrines and draw conclusions, than they are Biblically based in the first place.

I’ll pick on Calvinism here, because it’s what I’ve come out of to some degree, but similar things can be said of Arminianism or others systems that are constructed. Calvinism, in my opinion, is an extension in many regards of the Greek philosophies of Stoicism and Determinism. That doesn’t mean Calvinism doesn’t have valuable contributions to make or that I disagree with everything Calvinism teaches and concludes. It does mean however that the use of the philosophical constructs many times, draws conclusions and builds precept upon precept using deductive reasoning (like the syllogisms) and in many cases it creates doctrines in elaborate detail that when you go back to the Scripture and try to find any particularly large passage that says the same thing, you can’t find it.

Systematic theology tends to break the bible into small little bite size pieces and then puts together a jig-saw puzzle, the final picture which, doesn’t necessarily look like any picture I see the Bible directly painting.

I think Systematic Theology can tend to make the Bible itself subject to the framework being built and the fact is, that framework often is built on things not themselves in the Bible.

I prefer Biblical Theology that starts with the premise that Jesus Christ is the nexus of Human history and God’s plan of salvation for mankind and then interpret and understand the Bible in the context of the broad theme of Jesus as the living Word and the gospel message as the core of God’s message, plan and demonstration through Jesus Christ Himself as the ultimate revelation of God. Scripture points us toward Him.

 Sorry for the lecture. This is just where my heart is lately and it’s driving most of what I’m reading, seeing and learning.

Thought on “The Word of God”

For some, the “Word of God” exists only in a book as a prisoner that can be limited, measured and subjected to their examination and interpretation like a butterfly mounted in a display case. Jesus as the “Word of God” however must fly and we must be prepared for Him to take us places we can never go by ourselves.

Does Niceness equal Relationship?

Occassionally thoughts hit me and because I update my status regularly on Facebook, I’ll put something up that is original with me that just reflects where I am and what I’m thinking.

This post from Feb 6 has surprised me for how many others picked up on it and where it is has appeared since then. I guess we never know what will resonate with others. Anyway, here it is as it appeared on Feb 6 as a status update.

Institutional Christianity often seeks to resolve hurts by encouraging those within the system to ignore, minimize or deny them. This often leads to shallow, distant relationships where conformity is valued over honesty. Reality in the midst of fellowship is often messy. Without it however, there is no true fellowship and sadly many settle for the illusion offered that “niceness” equals “relationship.”

The Bible is not the “Word of God”

I’m bracing as I write this for an expected slew of shock, dismay, rebuke and unfriending the likes of which I’ve never seen before.  All I ask is that you read this entire post so you understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.

But yes …. you haven’t misread me.  I’m saying the Bible is not the “Word of God.”  Further the Bible itself doesn’t claim to the be the “Word of God.”  There is one and only one “Word of God” and that is Jesus Christ, period.

Why is this important?  I firmly believe that the Bible is inspired, given to us by God. It’s an important part of knowing and following Jesus.  However, it is not the equal of Christ, it is not Christ in written form, and it most certainly is not to be elevated above Christ.  Sadly, it’s my belief that many practising Christians have done just that, and in so doing have fallen into a form of modern gnosticism, which reduces Christian living to mere intellectual understanding, which is then seen somehow as elevating them in position above others who do not share their knowledge (see also “Pharisaism” in part, with an extra measure of self-righteous legalism to boot.)

The “Word of God” is a very specific and carefully used term in Scripture.  In the New Testament it especially is used in conjunction with the greek word “logos.”  It is this word and this phrase that is used in the prologue of John and many scholars and historians of the early church believe that this opening in John was written specifically to address what was seen by John and the early apostles as the heretical challenge of Gnosticism.  That may be true of that time, but I believe it is equally relevant and valid today to help us see that the heart and soul of a relationship with God, is through the person of Jesus Christ, as manifested in our life by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The purpose of the Bible is to point us to Jesus Christ.  It is never to replace Him.  In fact, I’ll make a radical statement (for some anyway) that I believe it is intentional on God’s part that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible so that we would not fall into the temptation to make them an idol and worship or elevate them as equal or even above Jesus Christ in any way whatsoever.  What we have in Scripture is overall reliable, demonstrably tie-able in most every situation to an agreed upon majority text (and I won’t get into the arguments that occur here in terms of the Byzantine or Alexandrian test traditions).  There is alway room however, for a measure of humility and care when we approach Scripture to allow that neither the texts we have, themselves are “perfect” nor is our understanding and interpretation of them in every case necessarily “perfect.”  There is only one “perfect” in the revelation of God to mankind and that is Jesus Christ (again) period.

The original languages use a very specific word for “Word of God” as I’m addressing it here, and that is the greek word “logos.”  There is another greek word used in the Bible about 70 times that is also often translated into English as “word” in the sense of a “spoken word” and that is the word “Rhema.”  They are not the same words and where “word of God” is rendered in scripture in any form, it’s important if you want to have any depth of understanding of the core meaning of the phrase to determine if the word is “logos”, “rhema” or some other form of phrase that is being translated in that manner.  That’s beyond the scope of a blog post, so I challenge you if you want to do a little digging on your own, go ahead and do a study on the phrase “Word of God” and find out, (there are many tools even on-line to do it) whether the phrase is rooted in “logos” or “rhema.”   When the phrase is logos, to understand that as anything other than Jesus Christ, the “logos” Word of God will lead to confusion and possibly a usurping of position and importance of the Bible to the diminishing  of Jesus Christ.  That is inconsistent with what Christianity really is.  Anything short of Jesus Christ at the center and as the foundation of a relationship with God, misses the point of God’s plan entirely.

Here’s some of the scriptures that are important in moving forward in this understanding, but it’s by no means exhaustive.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Gen. 1:1-3)

This passage to the understanding of many opens the Bible from the very onset of creation to show the role of each member of the Trinity in Creating (Christ), Moving with creation itself (Holy Spirit) and speaking things into being (God the Father).

It’s no mistake that John’s gospel opens with a similar formula and seeks, with no ambiguity to demonstrate the role of Christ in creation as God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Jn. 1:1- 3)

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Jn. 1:10- 14)

Here is the heart of the “logos”.  The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.  This word was present at the creation of the world and an active agent, described of God and it was this God who incarnated and came to dwell among us as the highest and greatest revelation of God.

What does Jesus say about the Scriptures?  First of all, he doesn’t use the term “word of God” in any sense that equates it with Himself.  He usually refers to scriptures (which for Him at that time were only the Old Testament scriptures as the NT didn’t exist yet) with the introductory phrase “as it is written” (Mt. 4:1-11; 11:10; 21:13; 26:31; Mk. 7:6; 11:17; 14:27; et al) or he’ll say something like “spoken of by the prophet” (Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14), or “all that the prophets have spoken” (Lk. 24:25).  Sometimes he’ll just say “scriptures” (writings) (Mt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:56; Mk. 12:10, 24; etc.)

When Jesus uses the phrase translated into English “Word of God” he is referring to the spoken word of God (in the context of Rhema, either using that word or appealing to that concept) and in most cases a specific instance where that speaking took place.  It’s not referring to the entire collection of scriptures let alone equating them as somehow the equal to Himself.  Examples of this are Mk. 7:13 where Jesus is referring to a specific commandment (Honor your Father and Mother) which some Pharisees had just quoted.  In Mt. 22:31-32 Jesus is referring to Ex 3:6.  Again, not exhaustive, but an example of what to look for.  When you see that phrase, look at what happened earlier and after and find the context of the specific passage he’s speaking of.  Don’t fall prey to “proof-texters” who wrench things out of context and try to make the comments by Christ apply to the entire body of Scriptures in some manner that then elevates them above Himself.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, just to clear up any misunderstanding, Jesus clearly taught that the scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to contain the “Word of God” (logos). 

“And The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” (Jn. 5:37-40)

The Scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus is the Life, not the Scriptures themselves.

And to close this very brief and by no means exhaustive it’s necessary to address the coup d’ grace often pulled out by those who wish to to make the Scriptures some sort of active force (independent of Jesus and the Holy Spirit).

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)

Seems pretty clearly to mean the Bible right?  Especially if you’ve been conditioned from a young child for this passage to mean this (as well as the armor of God in Ephesians) for this to mean the Bible.  (Maybe you remember as I do as I child being told to “Draw swords!”)  There’s only one problem with all this.  IT”S PATENTLY NOT TRUE.  Read on to the next verse.

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13)

It’s referring to something that is not manifest in “his” sight, and all things being naked and opened unto the eyes of “him” with whom we have to do.  Again, this is Jesus, not the Bible.  The Bible doesn’t work upon us (not in this context) from the outside.  It is Jesus who works inside of us by His Spirit.  May he use the Bible as we read and study it?  Of course, but he’s not limited to that and it’s Him that is doing it, not the scriptures themselves.

This seems to be such a basic teaching and yet I have to tell you, both as a believer for 35 years at the time of this writing and with 20 years of varied roles within several different churches, this is not commonly or clearly taught.  We’ve traded in Christianity with Christ at the center for a form of philosophy, and teaching that elevates the Bible to the equivalent of 4th member of the Trinity, and the really alarming part of it is that in doing it, Jesus is effectively emasculated (strong word I know, and I’m using it deliberately) and turned into a distant, symbolic figure who is not actively involved.  Further, it allows men (even well meaning men) to take the Scripture and cut it up into little pieces where they can manipulate and juxtapose it in proof-texts to say pretty much whatever they want and in doing so take upon themselves the authority that the only Jesus holds.

This is a radical thing to understand and it’s not easy to begin to break free from many elements of this indoctrination.  It takes consistent practice of examining many texts that are commonly quoted (there are others besides some of the mainstays quoted above.)  Stop reading and listening to the Scriptures in these haphazard ways.  Begin reminding yourself before you read that these Scriptures are present first and foremost to point to Christ.  HE IS THE WORD.  Can there be other purposes and lessons to learn?  Of course.  But these will always be subordinate to Christ and His Holy Spirit.  They do not rise above Him and they are not the equal of Him.

Start with the book of Colossians.  Read the whole thing (it’s a short book.) You’ll be amazed when you see how Christ is central to everything we are and how we are to walk.

The Bible is not the “Word of God.”  God help us for how much of what passes today as the Body of Christ that apparently has lost sight of that fact and turned Christianity into “people of the book.”  Thank God for the book, the Bible, but Thank God the most for Jesus Christ.  HE, is the core of Christianity, and if anything but Christ is at the center, then we’ve missed everything.

Thoughts on what’s going on with some of Western Christianity

(This is a post I put together on a forum I help to moderate.  I thought it might serve as a blog post as well.)

This is something that I have been meditating and thinking about for several years and it is the source of many of the changes of directing in my life and understanding of Christianity, Church and several other elements and so forgive me in advance if this is not very polished as it’s something of a brain dump, or maybe more to the point, a “spirit dump”.

For some time, I’ve begun reading the a portion of the literature collection known as the early Church Fathers. It’s been for the purpose of trying to understand as much as I can what the practices, thinking and foundations of the early church were and to what extent they are still represented in the church of today. I haven’t completed this, and I don’t know that I ever will. I don’t know that I should. Looking back is important. Internalizing it and seeking to walk today as Christ and his apostles taught and looking forward to eternity with Him is more the whole picture.

A quick background for any who don’t know me that well. At the time of my writing this, I am just shy of my 48th birthday. I was raised in Canada until the age of 15. My father’s background was Pentecostal. My mother was Catholic until she married. When they married the eventually began to attend the Anglican Church. At the age of 12 my family transferred to an evangelical church where I was born-again.

I’ve always had a love of reading, thinking and learning. My Uncle Paul was particularly recognized as being a brilliant man (he wrote the definitive manual on the Apple II), he was a college professor at times and always was exploring new areas of learning. He visited with us often and through the time he spent with me, he instilled some of these same characteristics in me. He taught me astronomy. We used to go out with a planosphere and observe the heavens. He took me to the planetarium in Toronto and enrolled me as a junior member of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and I began to receive the journals of the at organization and to read them as a pre-teenager and young teen. In it I was exposed to many of the elements of astrophysics and different approaches to understanding the universe.

My Uncle Paul also exposed and instilled within me a love of understanding how to think and understand. In our conversations often when we lay out at night gazing at the stars, we would talk. He would ask me questions and then ask me how I thought I knew what the answers and the “truth” was. It was all pretty light but he always piqued my curiosity.

At the age of 12, my uncle gave me a book for my birthday. It was The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant. That book was somewhat life changing for me. It exposed me to the history of western thought and moved me through the different philosophers from Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and through Augustine and Aquinas through the reformation and renaissance, right through many of the major modern thinkers. It didn’t occur to me that these were subjects better considered by older students. I simple read and devoured the book and reread it many times.

The rest of my history I’ll spare you. I’ve recounted it other places on the board and it is not that relevant to this topic.

In general, it seems to me, now as I look at the sum of my self-training in philosophy and history and my formal training in theology, that there is a serious disconnect between many areas of what Christianity is today and what was understood and practiced by those early Christians. Some of these, of course, are a product of the time and culture in which they are found, and I don’t expect that there is any point for us today to try and reconstruct the early church from the point of view of just recreating the past. Beyond that these are the things that have come out in my thinking and examination so far.

A huge transition took place in the thinking and practice of the church historically, and it is particularly exemplified in the thinking, teachings and changes to that early Christianity that particularly took place through Augustine. It’s no coincidence that Augustine is considered the father of Western Christianity. I’m coming to the conclusion that many of those changes carry the seeds of what has borne the fruit in contemporary Christianity of what I can only describe as Deism, Legalism and Rationalism displacing the central tenets and practices of early Christianity.

That a strong conclusion I know, but it’s where I am in a lot of my musings lately.

In particular, I think that much of the tenets and understanding of Christianity in the early church are best reflected in the church father Athanasius. It was he who fought many of the major battles that took place in the first two or three generations of the early church to help organize and define the understandings of some very important issues that arose from the challenges of some heretical understandings that arose. In particular, Athanasius was the one who spearheaded the opposition against the teachings of Arius (Arianism) in terms of the deity of Christ and the Trinity.

Much of the foundations of Christianity are laid out in a writing by Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God. It’s a long process but examining the writings of Athanasius in this regard and contrasting them with many of the changes introduced and reflected within the writings of Augustine has been extremely revealing to me.

How this ties to the question in this thread is particularly much of the idea asked about here in the realm of “absolute truth.” Augustine effectively took, greek philosophy and many of the assumptions contained within it, and merged it into Christianity and from that came much of what is accepted by many in the west as “christianity”. This is reflected in evangelicalism today and other traditions as well by assumptions that are hardly even questioned anymore. In particular these are some of those assumptions:

1. Christianity can provide an answer to most every question that can be asked, if not directly from Scripture, then by the systematizing of Scripture to concepts that then can be entered into syllogistic constructs and conclusions drawn based on those constructs.

2. Christianity with Augustine in particular made a major shift in its view of the character of God and the nature of man. Greek philosophy employs the method of dichotomizing questions down to two and only two options both of which are usually presented in terms of absolutes. An example of this is the nature of man. Augustine represents the sea change in Christian thought toward what became known as the total depravity of man. In terms of the nature of God, there was a particular change from a personal loving God, toward a more distant, unapproachable God. The former sense of uniformity within the nature of the trinity is in effect, dichotomized to where God the Father embodies primarily those characteristics of Judgment, Wrath, Indignant response to sin and the total depravity of man. Jesus then becomes the intermediary who represented the love, grace and mercy of God. In terms of intellectual construct there is an acknowledgement that all elements are in all of the members of the Trinity, but in practice certain elements in member of the Trinity eclipse the others.

3. Greek Philosophy merged a concept in that was previously not present. Greek philosophy centers on the need for “the unmade” or “the unorginate” from which descends all constructs. This is at the heart of deism. It pushes God away from intimate involvement with man and creation and provides an explanation for origins and systems, but then reduces or minimizes any need or presence of God within that creation and interacting with mankind. What the impact has been in terms of much of what I observe now in evangelicalism is the separating of God into “concepts”, “principles” and “ideas”. It easily descends into legalism which elevates performance over relationship (if God is distant then relationship diminishes by definition), and elevates rationalism, to where the Scriptures themselves are then subjected to the framework of a systematized approach.

Now, I’m not attempting to say that everything that these elements bring about is wrong. I’m not saying that there aren’t elements of Scripture where such a systematic approach can’t bring an answer that is valuable. What I am saying, is that because of all of these elements, there has been a strong tendency in western Christianity, toward separating these principles and ideals from God and Trinity themselves. It explains, in part I think, why evangelicalism has become so focused in politics toward establishing these ideals and pushing them through in a political agenda, losing sight of the fact that God’s Kingdom has never been about externally changing our social environment in order to bring about personal change. The Kingdom as Jesus promoted it has always been focused upon internal change brought about by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Many of these elements are very subtle, but the assumptions that they carry are very high impact. It explains how people can become focused on ideas such as Love, Grace, Faith, etc. and then separate them from the person of Jesus Christ and God and the Trinity as a whole and then deal with them as concepts in the midst of constructs and then construct a very convoluted, highly structured set of reasoning and logic. Soon without realizing it, you can , as I did, become caught in this realm and function in a way where there is no real daily walk with Christ and no real relationship that is the empowerment of your life. It becomes easy then in that situation to draw upon other sources to rely upon. That can be a heavy reliance upon education to indoctrinate and reinforce through behavioral methods these concepts. It can rely upon institutionalism and man-made hierarchies to pit in place some human elements to keep the engine running. None of these things are necessarily hindrances in and of themselves (although I’m really praying through a few of those to try and figure out where they fit.) It becomes however, a matter of things that are good replacing what God gave us as best and this is what in my mind sets the early church apart from what I see now sadly; a diminishing of the centrality of Christ and complete reliance upon Him. Set within this too, is a willingness, when some type of mystery or tension exists within Christ and the Scriptures being willing to accept some things on faith, in much the same way that if a loved mother or father appealed to you, for you to trust them on something without having to immediately figure out the “why” of everything.

Athanasious summed up a great deal of this here:

“The pagans, who are altogether strangers to the Son, were the authors of the word, ‘unmade;’ whereas our Lord Himself commonly spoke of God as His Father, and has taught us in like manner to use and apply the same…. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does the Son call the Father the ‘unmade.’ And when he teaches us to pray, He does not say, ‘When you pray, say, O God unmade,’ but rather, ‘When you pray, say, Our Father, which are in heaven.” (Against the Arians, I.34)

You can know absolute Truth. His name is Jesus, and He is God. Everything else pales next to that.

I’m sure this rambles and raised more questions than it answers but it prompted me to take some time to put some of my thoughts to writing. It’s still a work in process, just as I am. I hope it helps someone and doesn’t stir up too much controversy.

Just as an afterthought, as well, many of these issues are at the heart of what has been so controversial about the book, “The Shack.”  Much of what is at the core of The Shack aligns very well with Athanasius.  There’s been a particularly stringent, small although vocal sector of evangelical and reformed tradition who have practically gone apololectic over The Shack and its popularity.  Many of these “heresy hunters” have gone ballistic in their efforts to discredit and label the book.  Look carefully at the methodology used and asked how many of them are about the reality of a relationship with God and how many are disembodied principles and attributes drawn from Augustine’s western approach.  It’s quite revealing.

Visiting with Dan Whitney aka Larry the Cable Guy

Larry Sister schoolthe Cable Guy - Dan Whitney

OK.  I admit it.  I’m name dropping.  I had a chance to meet with a high school friend I haven’t seen for 30 years or so.  Normally that wouldn’t be such a big deal.  However, this friend is not the same as many others.  This friend is better known by his stage name “Larry the Cable Guy” than he is by the name I knew him by when he was a schoolmate at The King’s Academy in West Palm Beach. FL; Danny or “Dan” Whitney.

I’ve followed Dan’s career for quite some time.  I’ll confess however, that the first few times I heard of Larry the Cable Guy, I didn’t make the connection to Dan.  When one of my brothers pointed out who “Larry” was (Lawrence is Dan’s middle name) I immediately wondered how I could have missed it. 

I’m going to use this post to give some history and memories of Dan that I have, but I’m going to limit most of this information to that which you can find already present in other public sources.  I was not a particularly close friend of Dan’s, but we were close enough that when I was able to contact Dan, he knew who I was with just the mention of my name.  I can only imagine that as a public persona that Dan has his share of friends and contacts who attempt to use their relationship for special benefit.  Dan deserves his privacy.

Dan was born in February of 1963 in Nebraska where he grew up in a small community and attended public

Dan's Mother, Brother, Wife and Sister

school.  Dan’s family was strongly Christian.  His father, Tom Whitney, was a preacher and an educator who according to those who knew him, had an amazing knowledge of the Bible.  He worked with it in both Hebrew and Greek.  Further, others tell that they could bump into him and just toss out a verse reference and Tom could begin quoting from that passage and continue.  Despite his amazing intelligence and strong Christian faith, Tom had an ability to connect with people and students on a very personal and caring level.  Many students have stories to recount of Mr Whitney demonstrating a lot of care and personal attention to them.  Apparently, he was not terribly impressed with himself and his knowledge and position. 

I think this is Dan with his Dad, Tom Whitney

In addition to his abilities as a preacher and teacher, Tom Whitney was a  musical man who played guitar and was reported to have played with the Everly Brothers.  Dan’s life until the age of 15 was pretty typical of a small town mid-western young man.  He lived on a farm where he helped with chores which included keeping pigs.  He had an older brother Tom and an older sister Debbie.   In 1978, Dan moved with his family to West Palm Beach, Florida where Tom Whitney was hired as the Elementary School Principal of The King’s Academy.  Dan and his family moved into a very modest home in West Palm Beach and for the first time Dan went to a non-public school.  It was here that I met Dan.  He was in the 10th grade and I was in the 11th grade.  This was my first year at King’s Academy as well.  My family had just arrived from Burlington Ontario, where I had grown up.  King’s Academy at that time, was a relatively small school (it’s much larger now) and it was an adjustment for me, and no doubt for Dan as well.  King’s Academy prided itself on strong academics and strong discipline.  They employed a Tally System for tracking infractions which were recorded and discipline was handed out.  A tally would be issued for simple infractions such as a missed homework assignment, talking back to a teacher or even forgetting to bring a pen or pencil to class.  More serious offenses received “Intentionals” and trip to the counselor’s office.  Every 9 weeks tallies were totaled up and those students with more than 36 tallies received special discipline.  So the quota was 4 a week.  Some teachers were generous with students and rarely gave tallies except for more serious offenses.  Others apparently saw it as a special mission to “hone” their students.

I have to admit, I was one of the more “toe the line” kind of students at Kings.  Despite it being my first year at King’s I fit in pretty well and was recognized at the end of the year with a Most Inspirational Christian award.  I loosened up my Senior Year a little. 

Dan was a nice guy in High School.  He was very musical and played in the High School Band and the Pep Band as a

Dan's 15th Birthday. In Nebraska I think.

trumpet player.  Many students at King’s remember him as a very affable and humorous guy.  He was something of a class clown and particularly is remembered at times for the antics in Choir and Band where he would press the limits and then have to negotiate with the Band or Choir teacher to not get too many tallies.

While he was at King’s Academy, Dan was a pretty normal kid.  He had some special challenges being the son of the elementary principal and as a result he probably received more disciplinary attention than other kids did.  For the most part it appeared though that this was from people other than his Dad. 

Dan did not graduate from King’s Academy.  He ended up graduating from Berean Christian School in West Palm Beach Florida.  The details are one of those things that I’m not going to recount.  In general, however, what happened is that Dan’s dad Tom was faced with a situation where he took a stand on something he felt that was not right and was overruled by the school’s administration.  As a matter of principle (no pun intended) Tom Whitney resigned from King’s Academy and Dan was moved over to Berean.  The one time I heard Dan speak of this situation, it was clear that he had a lot of respect for his Dad’s stand.

Dan Whitney at King's Academy. Bottom row, second from right.

Upon graduating from Berean Christian School, Dan worked at a Wendy’s (he might have started before he graduated).  He went to a Baptist School in Georgia.  His normal speaking voice is typical mid-western with a country tinge.  Being in West Palm Beach put him in contact with “rednecks” that shaped his ability to mimic that accent.  Being in Georgia for so many years according to Dan, “frosted the dialect cake”.

Returning to Florida after College, Dan worked at the Ramada in West Palm Beach as a bellman.  This is another point of contact as I worked at the same hotel when it opened as a Hyatt Hotel originally.  We were not there at the same time however.  My brother James, used to run into Dan regularly as he was a bellman at another Hotel.  They would see each other occasionallyWhitney destiny at the airport doing runs for customers.

It was around 1986 however that Dan began to take his first steps toward his appointment with entertainment

A Young Dan Whitney

destiny.  Dan’s natural sense of humor and ability to tell jokes and make off the cuff quips earned him a reputation as the funniest bellman at the Ramada.  On a challenge from his friends Dan went to an open mic night at the Comedy Corner in West Palm Beach and found he was received well and began to become something of a regular there.  Eventually this translated to Dan being an MC and opening nights and introducing acts at the club as well as managing open mic nights.  It was at this point that Dan apparently decided that this was what he wanted to do with his life.

The next 13 years or so were hard work which involved working cruise ships, pounding the pavement to local clubs and over time he also began to develop a bit of a career in radio.  As a small radio personality, Dan began calling into shows and creating on air characters.  One of these characters was a cable guy who was a typical redneck.  Other comedy bits included a conservative commentator who would speak about issues of the day and ask if we were living in Russia.

His comedy travels put him in contact with another southern comedian by the name of Jeff Foxworthy who was making a name for himself on the comedy tour, writing books and producing albums.  Dan was performing in his persona as Larry the Cable Guy more and more and “Dan Whitney” fell more and more to the background.  Then came the Blue Collar Comedy Tour and Dan was invited to travel with Foxworthy and fellow southern comedians Bill Engval and Ron White.  At first Dan was the opening act.  Over time however, Larry the Cable Guy’s prominence on the Comedy circuit brought him to the point where he was on equal footing with the rest of the team and indeed in some regards he surpassed them.  Since 2001, Dan has consistently been among the highest grossing, if not the highest grossing, stand up comedian in the world.  Everything he’s touched has turned to entertainment gold with albums, movies, DVDs and television specials.

So enter 2010.  I’d heard from some other high school friends that had met Dan at some of his shows and shared old times with him, that he’d seen some of my internet activity in which I stood up for him and defended him against some pretty ugly (but typical) things in print.  Through those friends, Dan let me know he would like to see me.  Through a fortunate series of circumstances I was able to connect with him and he very graciously invited me and my family to one of his shows in Fairfax Virginia, near where I live, as his guests to see the show and then visit with him after the show.

Dan Whitney with the Breen Family

I wondered at what I would find.  Was this the same Dan I remembered who was naturally funny and yet also very personal and caring?  The simple answer is yes.  He was kind, generous and very gracious in spending time from what was obviously a very busy schedule.  He spent time speaking to me, my wife and my kids.  We reminisced over old days over the year book I brought in.  In short, for someone who is now on the Forbes top 100 entertainers list and who was on his way later in the week to go to Disney Studios for work on Cars 2 (as the voice of Mater) you wouldn’t know how important he is by how he treated us and those around him on his staff while we were there.

I’ll leave it at this for now.  I encourage you to look around some though at what he’s doing with his fame and fortune.  He’s generous to his community.  He supports foundations and charities that might otherwise get short shrift.  In short, he’s a nice guy.  I’m glad to call him a friend and wish him continued success.

Beginning the Journey through Jacques Ellul

Jacques Ellul

For the past several years one name repeatedly comes up in conversations with others, especially as I have been exploring the background to The Shack, which has been instrumental in opening my eyes to things I’ve accepted without examination due to my upbringing and training .

That name has been Jacques Ellul.  From a purely human perspective and my background he is someone whom I would not take seriously.  Raised as I was as an english-speaking Canadian with a Northern Irish heritage with a number of “Orange-men” sitting in the branches of my family tree, a French philosopher is not someone whom I would give a second look.  However, in The Shack, one of the opening quotes to a chapter comes from Jacques Ellul.  That quote came from Ellul’s book, Anarchy and Christianity and it was:

… no matter what God’s power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty.  It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself.

That is unquestionably a provocative quotation.  Further while it reminded me immediately of what has long been my favorite part of scripture, namely Philippians 2:5-11, it also flew in the face of much of the systematic theology that I’d been taught to believe that it was only Christ who chose to take on limitations and those expressly and only for the purpose of the incarnation and to take on the role of substitutionary sacrifice in order to have the wrath of God poured upon Himself in our place.

Philippians 2:5-11 (New International Version)

 

 ⁵Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
 ⁶Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
 ⁷but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
 ⁸And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!
 ⁹Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
 ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
 ¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
      to the glory of God the Father.

Here was something suggesting that this was more than a utilitarian means to an end.  Rather this was not only tied to our need but also to the nature of God to Love us.  Something happened in examining and considering this that has made a profound change in how I see many things.  The entire model that my view of God was built upon and the mixture of fear and judgment that underlay so much of what I preached and taught in my time in ministry began to crumble.

I began to look closer at the history of Christianity and noticed on my own and through the writings of others that Christianity has progressed steadily over time by integrating with the cultures and societies in which it has been a part and in so doing  it has morphed into something that at times bears no resemblance to the simple message of the New Testament.  In examining further the evangelical tradition that I’ve been a part of (and still include in many of my views and understandings) I came to see that a simple examination of many of the things that I accepted as foundational simply weren’t and further could be traced back as to when it entered the christian “mix” after the original model and teachings of Christ.

My view of the institutional church and the way I has functioned and viewed it functioning from both the inside and outside lost the veneer I’d covered it with and I was faced with some hard questions.

But I digress.  In the process of exploring these things the name of Ellul continued to arise.  One of the people I’ve met and interacted with on the web whom I have come to love and respect is Kent Burgess who maintains a blog and with whom I interacted at the official site of The Shack several time.  He in particular brought Ellul up several times and I began to explore him some more.

Which brings me to where I am now; sitting with my first Ellul book in my hands, The Subversion of Christianity.  In addition to the recommendation from Kent, I also have seen this strongly recommended by Greg Boyd whom I have come to respect and appreciate a great deal as well.

So over the next several weeks I will likely be putting up from quotes and some of my thoughts as I digest and work through this book.  Thanks for those of you willing to come along for the ride.

 

Are Psychology and the Bible Incompatible?

This is an issue that comes up occasionally for me discussing science and Christianity at www.goadandscience.org

Is psychology by its very nature incompatible with the Bible and thus to be summarily rejected and only the Bible embraced in matters of personal counseling?

Here’s part of a thread where a discussion like this took place between me and another brother at www.godandscience.org.  I was asked to respond to some of the issues present in this book at this link.  http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6951

I’ll answer this as best as I can. I have to be honest however that I’m frustrated that you’re not answering my questions to you personally and conversing with me. Just putting up links of general opposition which themselves don’t interact with what I’ve asked you previously doesn’t move the conversation along. If you’re response to me is that you simply don’t believe psychology has anything positive to offer and the reason you believe so is because you accept the authority of Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon on the issues, then just go ahead and say it and we’ll leave it at that.

Your first link is to a book with a general outline of what is in that book.

The premise of the book, based on their outline appears to be:

1. Psychology and Psychotherapy are essentially the same things. If you reject one then you have to reject the other.

This is patently false and a logical fallacy. I’ve already stated before that psychology is a science. Like any science, there are elements that are open to interpretation as to what conclusions you arrive at and then what you do with those conclusions. There are also people who take science and turn it into a pseudo-science laced with their own philosophy and clear humanism, atheism etc. Anyone can do this in this field as in any other. That doesn’t refute where psychology has in fact identified correlations or further, and this is not the same thing, even gone so far as to identify causal relationships. Taking that information and working with it in conjunction with Biblical truth is perfectly acceptable. Hunt and McMahon are taking the position that the root information itself is inherently wrong. This is the anti-intellectualism that I reference earlier to you.

2. The roots of psychology are completely secular humanist and inseparable and irredeemable for use or attention by Christians.

This is an all or nothing fallacy. First, it’s impossible for any book to address all issues. Books of this nature, and believe me I’ve read many, rely upon anecdotal stories that are used in succession to shock the reader with the carnality of key figures in psychology, psychotherapy and tie in where there have been ties with spiritism, occultism, mesmerism etc. There’s no shortage of such stories and they can be constructed and presented very strongly for shock value. Many of them are true as well. The study of the human psyche attracts all kinds of people. Where there is foundational hard evidence of truth that is objectively supported, that is not the same thing as what some, even if it is a majority, do with that truth and how it is applied.

The rest of the bullets pretty much all tie to the issues above.

Psychology is a very broad science. Psychotherapy and counseling are small subsets of that qnd tie more to application than actual science.  The material you’re referring to is rife with logical fallacies in my opinion. It equates the whole with the subset. It’s presents arguments based upon analogy and anecdotal evidence, some of which clearly is true and deserves attention, but it then it collectively condemns the entire field of knowledge and practice.

As I mentioned earlier, much of the material you’re referring too falls under the banner of Nouthetic Counseling. Now, as it happens, I’ve had training in pastoral counseling and read books by Nouthetic Counselors and about Nouthetic counseling. There’s a lot of good material there. Where I take issue with it is where it takes the position that Scripture alone is all that is to be used in counseling and addressing the needs of Christians who have problems.

The reasons put forward for this position usually include:

1. Counseling involves more than simply addressing cause and effect. There are values that are present in counseling techniques and approaches and those values have an impact upon the person.

There’s a lot of truth to that. Often time forms of secular counseling simply look at things in terms of how to change behavior, but if the counselor doesn’t believe the behavior is morally wrong then they may simply work with the counselee to convince then that what is wrong is the sense of guilt or shame that their experiencing and work to numb or shut off the person’s conscience. That’s pretty general. You know what? That’s a valid argument. It happens. Again however, it’s one thing to recognize where that is the case and it’s another thing to say that because that happens the use of knowledge or techniques are then alway wrong to use and apply.

If you’re seeking to build a house and you have a choice of using a hammer or a nail-gun to do a big job in that process which would you use? Now before you answer, make sure you understand this. Nail guns are dangerous. Here’s a story of someone who was killed by a nail gun if you have any doubts of that. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517699,00.html. In fact, all you have to do is go on the internet (and you know what an evil place that is …  ) and google and you can find any number of stories of similar acts of violence that have taken place with nail guns. What’s more there are a lot of nail gun accidents. Nail guns are inherently dangerous. (so far all I’ve said is true from this point on I’m embellishing to make a point.) If you look at the history of the people who developed the nail gun you’ll find that nail guns come from the same type of technology that produced guns and cannons. Millions of people have been killed by the precise technology that drives nail guns. What’s more, some of those people who developed guns and cannons meant to kill those people. They were evil people. Do you think you can separate all of that and use the nail gun to build your house now that you know all that? Better just to use the hammer, don’t you think?

Now of course, the analogy breaks down, like any analogy does. Consider this though, can you think of instances where purely Biblically based counseling can be wrong? I can. There’s cults aren’t there where presumably, only the Bible is used and we hear stories of compounds where there are all forms of abuse which are justified using the Bible. Now, of course, the Bible is being misused there and my point isn’t at all that the Bible is the source of that type of thing. I’m simply pointing out that even in the practice of Nouthetic counseling the faults, flaws and misunderstandings of the human counselor can come into play and seriously harm the counsel. There’s always an element of humanity in the process and methods, even when the Bible is held to be the only source.

Frankly, there’s areas in counseling where the Bible is silent on what to do and the issue isn’t purely one of bringing the counsel into alignment with the Bible on an issue. Eating disorders are an example. Take anorexia. Anorexia affects about 1 in 200 people. Of them, about 10 – 15% are males and the majority are females. Anorexia kills people. It and other eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any classified mental disorder. The long-term recovery rate for those who have anorexia is about 30 – 40% percent. That’s using hospitalization, counseling, medicine and every resource we have. These are pretty well established statistics. Please question me and go and look them up for yourself and confirm or correct me.

Nouthetic counseling operates on the premise that confronting, admonishing and correcting thinking to bring it into line with the Bible is all that a Christian needs. That’s where he word “Nouthetic” comes from. It’s based on the Greek word for admonishing. The success rate for addressing eating disorders using nouthetic counseling are much less than the success rate (which itself is sadly alarmingly low) using all other approaches. Now, again, you can easily find some testimonies of people with eating disorders who will tell you that they’ve been cured through noutheric counseling. Praise God for that. I don’t dispute their testimonies. However, holding those examples up doesn’t change the fact that when taken as a whole very few recover using nouthetic counseling when compared with other methods. Why? Maybe there’s more going on here than just the conscious thinking of the anorexic?

Let me ask you, If you had a daughter who was anorexic and you had a choice of working with a counselor who used only the Bible to address the need and you knew that there was a 15% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia or you had a choice of going to a Christian counselor who believed the Bible but used every possible tool he could to help your daughter and you knew that there was a 10% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia; what would you do?  Would you make the statement that the end doesn’t justify the means because someone can take those same tools and misuse them?  Really?

There’s all kind of nonsense that takes place in counseling and psychology. Don’t mistake the baby for the bathwater. I’m fully in support of Biblical counseling and recognizing that there are things we call “disorders” that boil down to sin and wrong thinking. Not everything boils down that simply. The Bible addresses everything we need to know in my opinion with regard to moral issues and salvation. It doesn’t address everything collectively outside of that.