Sunday, January 18, 2009

William Young’s The Shack

I recently read William Young’s The Shack. For a book with an initial marketing budget of only $300, its success has been nothing short of remarkable. It’s currently number one on the New York Times best seller’s list, and has gained a wide readership in the evangelical community. It’s endorsed by Michael W. Smith, and Eugene Peterson, among others.

The story opens with the abduction and brutal murder of “Mac’s” seven year old daughter. Four years later, Mac is invited by God to join him at the shack where his daughter’s murder was discovered. Mac accepts the invitation, and the remainder of the book is Mac’s experience with God at the shack. The book is essentially Young’s theodicy wrapped in a narrative. Young (consciously or not) follows Dostoevsky in tackling perhaps one of the greatest questions in theodicy—the suffering of children.

Young’s book has not been without controversy. Perhaps most immediately jarring is Young’s portrayal of God the Father as a large African American woman, and the Holy Spirit as an ethereal and diminutive Asian woman. (Jesus, mercifully, remains a Jewish handyman.) I’ve already made comments elsewhere about gender and the nature of God, so I wont belabor that point here. There are a number of troubling aspects to Young’s book (a tendency toward soteriological universalism, a sort of Trinitarian modalism, etc.), but I want to focus in on one particular issue, connected in part to Young’s decision to feminize God.

Young’s decision to portray God in mostly feminine categories has relevance to a wider “anti-power” motif woven throughout the book. Young, in casting God in female terms, attempts to distance God from a sense of tyranny and dominance—a sense more often associated with males than females. Young’s agenda is not unique. Those toward the theological left (and our postmodern milieu in general) tend to be suspicious of power, viewing it as oppressive and brutalizing. The emergence of egalitarianism within the church and home, and the movement toward decentralized church leadership structures are symptomatic of this shift. Hierarchy, we are often told, leads to oppression. At one point in the book, Mac asks God which of the three members of the Trinity is in charge of the others. The three are aghast at the thought. “What you are seeing here,” the Holy Spirit informs him, “is a relationship without any overlay of power…Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong uses to make others conform to what they want.” Power, Young argues at various points, is inherently corrupting and oppressive.

The net result is a God who rejects—indeed is repulsed by—the use of power. (In one scene God picks up a gun between two fingers, holding it at arms lengths as though it were a dead mouse). Young’s God never coerces, never forces; He believes the best in everyone, is enduringly patient, and invincibly good-natured. For Young, love cannot be love if it is not freely offered and freely received. Power equals dominance, and if God dominates us he cannot love us, nor can we freely love him.

There are two fundamental difficulties I have with Young’s “anti-power” motif. First, Young’s portrayal of God is out of step with much of the way God is portrayed in Scripture. It’s difficult to square Young’s pacifistic Trinitarian portrayal with the God of Genesis 6, the Christ of Revelation 19, and the Holy Spirit of Acts 5. And it’s at this point that Young’s theodicy falls short. The Scripture doesn’t allow us to distance God from violence and coercion. The deeper question of theodicy is not simply how a good God can allow death and destruction, but how a good God can cause death and destruction. Young’s book assumes the happiness of humanity is the highest good. The Bible does not affirm this. Simply put, God is not “for” everyone to the same degree, or in the same way. (Aquinas called this the “principle of predilection—the idea that “no created being would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.”) Those committed to the biblical narrative must wrestle with the (unsettling) reality of a God who does not love everyone equally, and who has personally brought about the death of women and children. On this question, Young’s book is silent.

Secondly, Young’s conflation of power and abuse is not accurate. The former does not automatically equate to the latter. The answer to the abuse of power is not the elimination of power, but rather the proper use of power. God is unquestionably a God of power. Young would agree with this, I’m sure, but Young seems to chafe against any idea that God would actually use his power to bring about his ends. But God does, and often. Further, the love of God is only as meaningful as the power that animates it. A God neutered of power is a God who lacks the capacity to love. Or again, the warmth of God’s imminence is only as meaningful as the height of his transcendence. Young’s portrayal of God, unlike the Bibilical God of the whirlwind, lacks any sense of transcendence.

Young comes closest to a biblical theodicy toward the end of the book. In a scene reminiscent of Job, Mac is offered the chance to sit as judge over both God and the world. With appropriate terror, Mac realizes just how little qualified he is to take God’s place as sovereign judge. This is perhaps the strongest part of Young’s book, but unfortunately, it remains largely out of step with much that is written elsewhere. The difference between the theodicy of Job and the theodicy found in Young is typical of the Calvinist/Arminian divide. Job comes to peace in the midst of his pain when he finally submits to God’s sovereign right to act as God in whatever way he deems, even if that means the destruction of Job’s livelihood and family. Conversely, Mac comes to peace when he realizes that God really is a nice guy after all, and that all that stuff about him being angry and wrathful was a gross mischaracterization. The latter is perhaps the quickest and most palatable pathway to peace; but in the end, it sugarcoats the harder issues and lacks a true biblical foundation.

It’s obvious Young’s book has struck a chord with the culture at large, and the evangelical culture not least. It’s clear the people in our churches crave an immanent God—one who understands our needs, our weaknesses, and who is able to identify with us in our fragile human existence. And indeed the Word Incarnate is the Father’s way of whispering tenderly in our ear. In Christ, the transcendent God draws near to us in flesh and bone. He walks our paths and feels our pain. Young’s desire for a God of compassion and tenderness is legitimate, and we do well to ask why such a deficit might exist in our churches. Have we failed to communicate properly the deep love that God has for his children? Perhaps. But if we have, Young’s book is not the best corrective. Young, in an attempt to wipe the blood off of God’s hands, ends up diminishing the transcendence and power of God. The best way to correct an unbalanced view of God is not by introducing an opposing unbalanced view of God.

I have no doubt that The Shack is Young’s sincere attempt to sort out some rather troubling issues. The question of how a good God can allow suffering and evil is difficult, no matter how you slice it. But this is not a book I can recommend. For those who need a theodicy wrapped in a narrative, a work such as Lewis’ Till We Have Faces is the better, even if more difficult, way forward.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

America Has Chosen a President

The election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States came as a bang, not a whimper. The tremors had been perceptible for days, maybe even weeks. On Tuesday, America experienced nothing less than a political and cultural earthquake.

The margin of victory for the Democratic ticket was clear. Americans voted in record numbers and with tangible enthusiasm. By the end of the day, it was clear that Barack Obama would be elected with a majority of the popular vote and a near landslide in the Electoral College. When President-Elect Obama greeted the throngs of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, he basked in the glory of electoral energy.

For many of us, the end of the night brought disappointment. In this case, the disappointment is compounded by the sense that the issues that did not allow us to support Sen. Obama are matters of life and death -- not just political issues of heated debate. Furthermore, the margin of victory and sense of a shift in the political landscape point to greater disappointments ahead. We all knew that so much was at stake.

For others, the night was magical and momentous. Young and old cried tears of amazement and victory as America elected its first African-American President -- and elected him overwhelmingly. Just forty years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, an African-American stood to claim victory as President-Elect of the nation. As Sen. Obama assured the crowd in Chicago and the watching nation, "We will get there. We will get there." No one hearing those words could fail to hear the refrain of plaintive words spoken in Memphis four decades ago. President-Elect Obama would stand upon the mountaintop that Dr. King had foreseen.

That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.

Every American should be moved by the sight of young African-Americans who -- for the first time -- now believe that they have a purchase in American democracy. Old men and old women, grandsons and granddaughters of slaves and slaveholders, will look to an African-American as President.

Regardless of politics, could anyone remain unmoved by the sight of Jesse Jackson crying alone amidst the crowd in Chicago? This dimension of Election Day transcends politics and touches the heart of the American people.

Yet, the issues and the politics remain. Given the scale of the Democratic victory, the political landscape will be completely reshaped. The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss, and by the election of a President who has announced his intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. The struggle to protect marriage against its destruction by redefinition is now complicated by the election of a President who has declared his aim to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. On issue after issue, we face a longer, harder, and more protracted struggle than ever before.

Still, we must press on as advocates for the unborn, for the elderly, for the infirm, and for the vulnerable. We must redouble our efforts to defend marriage and the integrity of the family. We must be vigilant to protect religious liberty and the freedom of the pulpit. We face awesome battles ahead.

At the same time, we must be honest and recognize that the political maps are being redrawn before our eyes. Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door.

Others will declare these struggles over, arguing that the election of Sen. Obama means that Americans in general -- and many younger Evangelicals in particular -- are ready to "move on" to other issues. This is no time for surrender or the abandonment of our core principles. We face a much harder struggle ahead, but we have no right to abandon the struggle.

We should look for opportunities to work with the new President and his administration where we can. We must hope that he will lead and govern as the bridge-builder he claimed to be in his campaign. We must confront and oppose the Obama administration where conscience demands, but work together where conscience allows.

Evangelical Christians face another challenge with the election of Sen. Obama, and a failure to rise to this challenge will bring disrepute upon the Gospel, as well as upon ourselves. There must be absolutely no denial of the legitimacy of President-Elect Obama's election and no failure to accord this new President the respect and honor due to anyone elected to that high office. Failure in this responsibility is disobedience to a clear biblical command.

Beyond this, we must commit ourselves to pray for this new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We are commanded to pray for rulers, and this new President faces challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. May God grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.

We must pray that God will protect this nation even as the new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.

We must pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.

Without doubt, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must expect to be frustrated and disappointed. We may find ourselves to be defeated and discouraged. We must keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up nations and pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think as unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.

America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose. By Dr.Mohler

Friday, July 25, 2008

Man Shaped Hole in God�s Heart?

odd Friel, Way of the Master Radio Host and Worldview Weekend, Code Blue Rally Speaker

A quick listen to most contemporary Christian preaching, writing or singing would lead you to believe that God is gaga about humans and just longs to spend time with us. The latest dreck from Oneness Pentecostals (i.e., they believe in a heretical Jesus) Phillips, Craig and Dean, is a typical example.



No Matter How Long
I watched you as you stumbled out of bed,
Rushed out the door, your coffee in your hand.
And you looked so lost and lonely,
I knew I had to find a way
To make you understand, I wanna be your friend.
So I painted a sunrise in the sky
And I caused the birds to sing you lullabies,
And I whispered sweet "I love you's".
No matter how long it takes, somehow I'll find a way
Somehow My love will find a way,
No matter how long it takes.
I watched you as you fell asleep last night,
And I trembled as I watched the tears you cried.
So I splashed your face with moonlight, and I longed for your embrace.



A Brief History Lesson

Before we dissect that song, it is crucial we remember that evangelicalism blossomed out of the dead, liberal Protestantism of the middle 20th century. From the early 1900�s, Biblical Christians watched as liberal Protestantism produced false converts who pretended to worship God on Sunday, but were completely detached from Him on Monday.



Evangelicalism roared to life with the correct mantra, �You need to have a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ.� To that I say, �Amen.� But as is the case with every movement that arises in response to a singular problem, it is not long before it falls into an opposite and equally damning ditch. In this case, evangelicalism appears to have fallen into the pit of Godly romanticism.



Evangelicals now present God as a love sick puppy who yearns to spend time with us. We have exchanged His loving-kindness for a gooey, romantic love.



What is wrong with this song?

While I suspect the author is alluding to Psalm 19 and II Peter 3, his repositioning of theology is staggering. My comments are in parenthesis.


I watched you as you stumbled out of bed
Rushed out the door, your coffee in your hand
And you looked so lost and lonely (God does not desire to save us from loneliness, but from our sins)
I knew I had to find a way (This makes God sound less than omniscient)
To make you understand, I wanna be your friend (While the Bible says we can be friends with God, it means reconciled, not bosom buddies)
So I painted a sunrise in the sky
And I caused the birds to sing you lullabies (God gives us creation to appreciate Him, not lull us to sleep)
And I whispered sweet "I love you's" (Is God our boyfriend or the Sovereign Creator of the universe?)
No matter how long it takes, somehow I'll find a way. (God is not thwarted by anything, let alone us)
Somehow My love will find a way, (Poor, pitiful God)
No matter how long it takes. (�It is appointed unto man once to die, then judgment�)
I watched you as you fell asleep last night
And I trembled as I watched the tears you cried. (God trembles?)
So I splashed your face with moonlight, and I longed for your embrace. (This sounds more like a Harlequin novel than Scripture)



Redefining the Atonement

Not a single Bible verse can be found to support the idea that we are so loveable that God yearns for us. Instead, God desires to restore children of wrath to a right relationship with Himself so that His loving-kindness can be displayed (Eph.2).



God does not pursue us because he finds us so adorable that His heart will just break if He can�t find a way for us to fall in love with Him. He desires to save the unlovable so that His mercy can be magnified. The salvation that God offers is for His namesake, for His glory.



Why have we so altered the doctrine of reconciliation? I am convinced it is because we have abandoned expository preaching and the preaching of God�s Law. The result? We have relegated God�s sense of anger, wrath and justice to the Old Testament as if He were a different God than that �nice New Testament God�.



While we do not want to end up in the �God is only angry� ditch, we have to find our way out of our present moat. My suggestion: we need to preach verse by verse to have a complete knowledge of the character and nature of God. We need to preach the Law to understand that we are not loveable, but loved despite what we are.



That is my take. What�s yours?

quick Tips: Witnessing to JW

rarely do we encounter someone who hasn�t had a Jehovah�s Witness come knocking on their front door. The Jehovah�s Witnesses are notorious for their aggressive door-to-door evangelistic strategy. And while many people might view the Jehovah�s Witnesses at their door as an annoyance, they are literally a mission field at our doorstep. Therefore, we try to encourage Christians to view their visits as an opportunity, an opportunity to open their eyes to the truth and to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them.

The next time the Jehovah�s Witnesses comes to your front door, instead of simply turning them away, why not spend five minutes and sow some simple seeds of truth into their lives? You may not convert them to true Christianity right there at your doorstep, but you can give them some important truths to consider, truths which may eventually bear genuine fruit of repentance and conversion in their lives.

The basic error of the Jehovah�s Witnesses is what we call a �theology of denial�. Jehovah�s Witnesses basically deny all of the central doctrines of the Christian faith; most significantly, they deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Jehovah�s Witnesses wrongly believe that Jehovah alone is God almighty, Jesus is only a god- a created being (actually the archangel Michael), and the Holy Spirit is simply an active force. This is a far cry from the true biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Now, if you only have five minutes to spend with a Jehovah�s Witness, try walking them through the following passages of scripture, passages that bear witness to the reality of the Deity of Jesus Christ (and the beauty of sharing these passages is that you can even use the Jehovah�s Witness� false version of the Bible, the New World Translation):

1) Begin by reading with the Jehovah�s Witness from Revelation 1:8.

�I am the Alpha and the Omega,� says the Lord God, �Who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.�

After reading this verse together, ask them the following question, �Who is the Alpha and the Omega?� They will respond by saying something like, �Well, it says right there, the Alpha and the Omega is the Lord God (or Jehovah God in their translation).�

2) Next, ask them if they will read another passage of scripture with you, and read from Revelation 22:13.

�I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End�

After reading this verse with them, ask them, �Now, who exactly is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last?� And they will probably respond by saying something like, �We just saw who the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last is, he is the Lord God (or Jehovah God in their translation).

3) Lastly, ask them if they�ll look at one more passage with you, and read with them from Revelation 1:17-18.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: �Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last (stop here and ask again, �who is the First and the Last?�). I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!�

After reading this last passage of Scripture with them, ask the Jehovah�s Witness, �So, when exactly did the Lord God (or Jehovah God in their translation) die?� And most Jehovah�s Witnesses will just look at that passage in bewilderment, for you have just shown them conclusively, even from their own translation, that Jesus is the Lord God (or Jehovah God). If you want to demonstrate this reality even further, read with them from Revelation 22:13 & 16, where the Alpha and the Omega says, �I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.�

This series of passages can be a powerful tool when witnessing to a Jehovah�s Witness. These passages demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Lord God, or Jehovah God. Jesus Christ is not simply a god, a created being; he is the eternal Lord God.
The next time the Jehovah�s Witnesses come to your front door, instead of simply turning them away, why not try sharing these 3 passages with them? God could use you to powerfully impact the life of a Jehovah�s Witness� and it only takes five minutes! Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Monday, March 31, 2008

Books don't change people; paragraphs do.

Some times even sentences. I remember an Monday morning i just got done with class. I just picket up a new book by C.S Lewis.... Even if i had not read another page, my life would have been changed forever. I can probably boil it down to two sentences: "We are halfhearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. we are far too easily pleased." I don't think anythings would ever be the same again. just one paragraph and the decisive work was done.

The point is that much reading of many books may be like the gathering of wood but the fire blazes forth form a sentence. The mark is left on the mind not by the kindling of many pages, but by the red-hot iron of a sentence set on fire by God...........

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The Holy Spirit only calls a select few to be jackasses.

At the Resurgence conference, Matt Chandler discussed how Mark Driscoll is called to be a jerk but that doesn’t mean everyone is.