Today I saw a TV show where a Indian couple and an Argentinian man were being interviewed. OK, well it was Oprah's show, and I just hate to admit that I was bored enough to watch it, but I did. Don't judge me, OK?!? I have a couple observations about the conversation with the Indian (Asian) couple. (Needless to say the Argentinian man was charming and beautiful - OK, that's all I'm saying! But I'm going back there!)
When asked if it was true that they were living with the man's parents, he said, "Yes they were". Oprah asked how that was working for them, and he responded, "Well Oprah, do you live with your parents?" Oprah responded "No," and he said, "How's that working for you?". Everyone laughed, but the distinctive cultural response was telling. In India it is the norm for adult children to remain in the son's parent's home when they marry. The Indian actor said that despite the wealth they had gained through their careers, and being well able to afford their own home, it was normal and good for them to follow this tradition. He said that when his grandparent's were alive, they too were part of the family unit under one roof. Now I realize that this is not the norm for many American families. It seems a deeply accepted norm of our contemporary American culture to have families live in separate residences. The implication is that independence and separation is the ultimate goal and is better for all concerned. Somehow, any other living arrangements seem to be substandard, at least by implication. I want to add that this isn't the testimony of generations past in American and of other parts of the world. I want to say that I am fortunate enough to be part of a minority group of multi-generational American families that live together.
This is just a personal beef I guess, but I can't tell you how many times I have people ask me, "Do your daughter and grand kids still live with you?" My daughter gets the same question. When we respond that we are still living together, the reaction varies from, "How long are you going to do that?" to "Wow, still?", and sometimes even, "That would drive me crazy!". Now mind you, it's really no body's business what anyone else's living arrangements are, but I understand that people are interested. Let's assume that we didn't have circumstances that made this an understandable and desirable arrangement during the past years. That set aside I will add that this is a good idea for us now, no matter what past circumstances were. Why?
I get to see God's sovereign plan for my life unfolding in it's own time and way,
I get to experience the liveliness of a household with young children,
I am fortunate enough to see the world anew through their eyes,
I get to see, and be involved with my grand children's spiritual growth,
I get to have the opportunity of being a friend, up close and personal, with my adult daughter,
I get to share the household responsibilities with another adult woman (maybe that polygamy thing had some benefits -- OK, don't have a meltdown, I'm kidding, partly!),
At a stage of my life when I might be tempted to slow down, and slip down the Senior Slippery Slope, I have multiple incentives to stay active and involved,
I don't have to travel great distances to see the kids or my daughter (wish I could say the same for Mark, Azul, and Tao),
If I want to go to a show or out to eat, there's never a lack of someone wanting to join me,
I get to hear a summary of the sermon at another church (Felicia) or what's happening in another churches A.W.A.N.A. (Alex and Izzy) almost every week,
I get to hear Alex singing to himself all day long,
I get to receive some of Isabel's great hugs whenever I want,
I get to have "adult" conversations with Felicia and see what a great young woman she's become,
I get to intimately see what a phenomenal mother my daughter is and the day by day courage of her life,
I get to see my son Matt standing in as a "dad" for his nieces and nephew, showing what an extraordinary Dad he would be,
I can't imagine going a day without seeing, or talking to my daughter and grandchildren,.... and
Well, I guess you get the point. So please do me a favor; if you are curious enough to ask whether part of my family is still living here with me, be aware that I will answer, hopefully cheerfully, but that behind my response, I'm sort of feeling sorry for you if you haven't experienced the joys of this multi-generational blessing.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Fishing
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Proverb
This well known proverb teaches an important truth; give people things and you meet immediate needs, but teach or train them to take care of themselves and you empower them. I understand and agree with the point in the physical areas of life. I thought about this proverb today while at an annual family "giving party". About five years ago John's sister initiated this really special tradition. We meet after Christmas and have lunch at her place, and she makes several suggestions of charitable organizations that she is willing to donate to, instead of giving us things we may not want, and certainly don't need. In so doing, it raises every one's awareness of others who have far less than we, and it also promotes gratitude for what we have. Now, I'm all for anything that increases our awareness of the needs of others along with finding ways we can give out of the abundance with which we've been blessed. This is a meaningful time for the family and I'm grateful to my sister-in-law for the trouble to which she goes in preparing a nice day for us. But today I couldn't help but reflect upon the insufficiency of this proverb's maxim when related to spiritual truths.
There are many organizations out there that do good work for people. They provide food, clothing, shelter, and a myriad of support services. Some organizations have an additional component that provides mentoring, modeling, life skill instruction, vocational counseling, and self-sufficiency projects. While these are admirable and more akin to the proverb's sentiment, organizations that stop there, miss a vital point. If we feed a person's body but not their soul, they will eventually die physically and spiritually. But if we feed their souls (with the living Word of God), they will still die physically some day, but spiritually they will live eternally.
Americans are notoriously into self-sufficiency. We are a "pull yourself up by your boot straps" kind of people and culture. Go to Borders or Barnes and Noble and you'll find shelf after shelf of self-help, or do-it-yourself books. We pride ourselves on our ability to stand on our own two feet. The problem with a charitable organization or an individual stopping there is that it's easy to miss the vital truth that this is the antithesis of how things work in the spiritual realm. Christ's birth, which we have just celebrated, is a vivid reminder to us that God has done for us what we CAN NOT do for ourselves. You know the story - Jesus was born as a man to live a perfect life, and die sacrificially on our behalf, so that we might find our way back to God. God is holy and can not allow sin in His presence. Only a perfect sacrifice could be offered on our behalf to make God's forgiveness available to us. This flies in the face of human self-sufficiency. God doesn't grade on a curve, and so even if I'm pretty good 60% of the time (or even 95%), or if I'm mostly better than others, it's not the 100% required to meet His holy standard. Only Christ could meet the standard, and pay the price for the sin of mankind. When I dismiss the work of Christ as being insufficient, which is what I do when I say that I must do my part, therefore adding to His work, I show that I don't understand my situation or my peril. It also shows that I don't understand the holiness of God or how broken I really am. It also speaks poorly of a God, who would insist that Christ's death be the only solution to our problem, and let His son die, if we could earn His favor or forgiveness on our own.
So, the good news announced at Christmas, and realized at Easter, is that God has made a way for us, knowing we could not do it for ourselves. Let's not let our American independence hinder us from seeing these life saving truths. We've all received, and given gifts this Christmas. In all of that let's not forget that Christ is THE ULTIMATE GIFT; one we didn't earn, or deserve, but can receive by faith. If you have questions about how this works, feel free to email me privately and we can talk! (chwitucke@att.net)
There are many organizations out there that do good work for people. They provide food, clothing, shelter, and a myriad of support services. Some organizations have an additional component that provides mentoring, modeling, life skill instruction, vocational counseling, and self-sufficiency projects. While these are admirable and more akin to the proverb's sentiment, organizations that stop there, miss a vital point. If we feed a person's body but not their soul, they will eventually die physically and spiritually. But if we feed their souls (with the living Word of God), they will still die physically some day, but spiritually they will live eternally.
Americans are notoriously into self-sufficiency. We are a "pull yourself up by your boot straps" kind of people and culture. Go to Borders or Barnes and Noble and you'll find shelf after shelf of self-help, or do-it-yourself books. We pride ourselves on our ability to stand on our own two feet. The problem with a charitable organization or an individual stopping there is that it's easy to miss the vital truth that this is the antithesis of how things work in the spiritual realm. Christ's birth, which we have just celebrated, is a vivid reminder to us that God has done for us what we CAN NOT do for ourselves. You know the story - Jesus was born as a man to live a perfect life, and die sacrificially on our behalf, so that we might find our way back to God. God is holy and can not allow sin in His presence. Only a perfect sacrifice could be offered on our behalf to make God's forgiveness available to us. This flies in the face of human self-sufficiency. God doesn't grade on a curve, and so even if I'm pretty good 60% of the time (or even 95%), or if I'm mostly better than others, it's not the 100% required to meet His holy standard. Only Christ could meet the standard, and pay the price for the sin of mankind. When I dismiss the work of Christ as being insufficient, which is what I do when I say that I must do my part, therefore adding to His work, I show that I don't understand my situation or my peril. It also shows that I don't understand the holiness of God or how broken I really am. It also speaks poorly of a God, who would insist that Christ's death be the only solution to our problem, and let His son die, if we could earn His favor or forgiveness on our own.
So, the good news announced at Christmas, and realized at Easter, is that God has made a way for us, knowing we could not do it for ourselves. Let's not let our American independence hinder us from seeing these life saving truths. We've all received, and given gifts this Christmas. In all of that let's not forget that Christ is THE ULTIMATE GIFT; one we didn't earn, or deserve, but can receive by faith. If you have questions about how this works, feel free to email me privately and we can talk! (chwitucke@att.net)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Christmas Eve, 2009
I really didn't want to go to the Christmas Eve service this year. Not because I was feeling all "bah, humbug", but because leaving the house to go anywhere at 10:40 (and in pouring rain to boot) just doesn't have the appeal it used to. I marvel at young adults whose nights often begin at 10:40, and here I was wishing for a warm nightgown, my comfy bed and a good book. Well, I had agreed to read a motivational Christmas story, and couldn't just not show up.
I got to church and everyone was on typical Free Church time, which means only the folks leading the service were there setting up. The church was dimly lit and so quiet. It reminded me of our house, just moments before the kids burst through the door after school; unnaturally quiet and sort of anticipating. Well, before long, and very quickly, the church filled with people. I was pleased to see the good crowd. As I looked around I saw faces of people I hadn't seen for awhile. It seems that, like the salmon that swim upstream to return home, many of our former young people find their way back to Our Saviour Free on Christmas Eve.
As I looked around the sanctuary I saw faces going back to my earliest days at the church. Tim, who was in the youth group when John and I served as youth leaders had come back with his family. Others, who were from the time period when my own children were teens were also present. Bud, who'd recently had a knee replacement surgery, surprised us with his presence. It strangely still surprises me to walk into the sanctuary and experience the absence of some loving friends and family; my John, Karl, Robin, Carol, Jeff, and so many more.
The service began, and just before I was to share, the son of one of our Elders went to the pulpit. His parents had come to the church as newly weds, and now Brandon, their eldest, and his new fiance' retold some of the traditions that had been so important to them growing up in their respective homes, and the ones they hoped to take with them into their marriage. In those young and shining faces I couldn't help but remember John and I coming to the church in 1968, and spending our first Christmas as a married couple at Our Saviour Free (then called Wheeling Free Church). I felt really choked up as I went forward, realizing that this church has been my home, and family for 41 years. So many Christmas's, special events, marriages, births, deaths, fun, and fellowship. In my mind's eye I saw my Mark, Andy Lindman and Sean Sahlstrom, wrestling during the kids Christmas program, and knocking the head off one of the wise men. I saw John, dressed as the angel Gabriel, resplendent in a white robe, and his gold painted high tops during another Christmas performance. I saw myself, missing a chair during a Christmas contata, and falling down in front of a packed out church. My mother, sitting in the back of the church had yelled something like "there she blows", but I found out later she'd said, "there she goes". Well, I won't go on, but those memories and so many more, represented times that had formed bonds of love that are treasured to this day.
Tim's parents spoke after me, and shared about the 57 Christmas's they have had together. Talk about the circle of life visually and verbally represented. As in the life of any couple, there are tough as well as good times. And at church there have been some difficult times too - the last 2 1/2 years have been no picnic! But just like a good marriage, when you work through those difficult times, the bonds become stronger and more enduring. The difference in the Christian community is that we don't just spend the years of an Earthly lifetime together; these are the believers with whom we will be spending eternity. If we were left to our own devices there'd be no motivation or power to ever reconcile or get along. But Christmas is so special because it shows the extremes God has gone to so that we might have that experience of unity and eternity together. Jesus came as a baby allowing God to take upon himself the flesh and bone of the fallen and broken mankind He so loved. In coming, He invaded the mess that humans had made, so that He could live a perfect life, and then die on a cross 33 years later. In doing that he made a way for us to come back to him and to enter into an eternal fellowship of community.
All in all, I am so glad that I had a reason to force me out of my comfort zone at home. Going out into a rainy, dark night ended up so much better than that warm bed and book would have. I was reminded of the faithfulness of God and many of His people. I was encouraged, and renewed, and through worshiping that babe, I was given a glimpse again into God's magnificent plan. I hope that those few of you who read this had a blessed Christmas and will have a wonderful new year. May 2010 be a time of renewal for each of us and Christ's church; after all, God has become flesh and dwelt among us!
I got to church and everyone was on typical Free Church time, which means only the folks leading the service were there setting up. The church was dimly lit and so quiet. It reminded me of our house, just moments before the kids burst through the door after school; unnaturally quiet and sort of anticipating. Well, before long, and very quickly, the church filled with people. I was pleased to see the good crowd. As I looked around I saw faces of people I hadn't seen for awhile. It seems that, like the salmon that swim upstream to return home, many of our former young people find their way back to Our Saviour Free on Christmas Eve.
As I looked around the sanctuary I saw faces going back to my earliest days at the church. Tim, who was in the youth group when John and I served as youth leaders had come back with his family. Others, who were from the time period when my own children were teens were also present. Bud, who'd recently had a knee replacement surgery, surprised us with his presence. It strangely still surprises me to walk into the sanctuary and experience the absence of some loving friends and family; my John, Karl, Robin, Carol, Jeff, and so many more.
The service began, and just before I was to share, the son of one of our Elders went to the pulpit. His parents had come to the church as newly weds, and now Brandon, their eldest, and his new fiance' retold some of the traditions that had been so important to them growing up in their respective homes, and the ones they hoped to take with them into their marriage. In those young and shining faces I couldn't help but remember John and I coming to the church in 1968, and spending our first Christmas as a married couple at Our Saviour Free (then called Wheeling Free Church). I felt really choked up as I went forward, realizing that this church has been my home, and family for 41 years. So many Christmas's, special events, marriages, births, deaths, fun, and fellowship. In my mind's eye I saw my Mark, Andy Lindman and Sean Sahlstrom, wrestling during the kids Christmas program, and knocking the head off one of the wise men. I saw John, dressed as the angel Gabriel, resplendent in a white robe, and his gold painted high tops during another Christmas performance. I saw myself, missing a chair during a Christmas contata, and falling down in front of a packed out church. My mother, sitting in the back of the church had yelled something like "there she blows", but I found out later she'd said, "there she goes". Well, I won't go on, but those memories and so many more, represented times that had formed bonds of love that are treasured to this day.
Tim's parents spoke after me, and shared about the 57 Christmas's they have had together. Talk about the circle of life visually and verbally represented. As in the life of any couple, there are tough as well as good times. And at church there have been some difficult times too - the last 2 1/2 years have been no picnic! But just like a good marriage, when you work through those difficult times, the bonds become stronger and more enduring. The difference in the Christian community is that we don't just spend the years of an Earthly lifetime together; these are the believers with whom we will be spending eternity. If we were left to our own devices there'd be no motivation or power to ever reconcile or get along. But Christmas is so special because it shows the extremes God has gone to so that we might have that experience of unity and eternity together. Jesus came as a baby allowing God to take upon himself the flesh and bone of the fallen and broken mankind He so loved. In coming, He invaded the mess that humans had made, so that He could live a perfect life, and then die on a cross 33 years later. In doing that he made a way for us to come back to him and to enter into an eternal fellowship of community.
All in all, I am so glad that I had a reason to force me out of my comfort zone at home. Going out into a rainy, dark night ended up so much better than that warm bed and book would have. I was reminded of the faithfulness of God and many of His people. I was encouraged, and renewed, and through worshiping that babe, I was given a glimpse again into God's magnificent plan. I hope that those few of you who read this had a blessed Christmas and will have a wonderful new year. May 2010 be a time of renewal for each of us and Christ's church; after all, God has become flesh and dwelt among us!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Bah Humbug, Not!
It's been so long since I've written that I don't know where to begin or what to say...I know that those of you who know me have a hard time reading that without a good belly laugh. The fact of the matter, as much as I can, and do, talk, I've realized I don't have much that is original to share. As this Christmas day approaches I really have mixed feelings.
I sat down today to watch a remake of "Christmas In Connecticut" with Dyann Cannon and Kris Kristofferson. All I can say is, "big mistake!" Not only was it a mistake because this 1992 remake is a pale shadow of the original Barbara Stanwick, Dennis Morgan film, but it was also an horrible idea because I absolutely didn't need to see any formulaic, "female is oh so sad, life is a mess, and within 90 minutes it's all fixed" kind of movie. Life just isn't like that is it? First of all, the contentment that we feel, or don't, is rarely about the things in our life, and by now most of us have realized that it's not another person that can fill up the empty holes of our lives. Why does it take so long to realize that? Perhaps a lot of life's water needs to flow under our bridges before we start to "get it". Those of you who know me, know that as a person of faith, I believe that Christ brings meaning to life and a purpose for living. But let's face it, there are those who are genuine believers who are hurting desperately this holiday season, and it doesn't help to have the urban legend of "the perfect life, in the perfect house, with the perfect children, and perfect spouse" flick messing with your head even more. It also, I'm learning, doesn't help to have other people, who's lives may currently be in a really good place, tell us how it'll get better, or how a bit more faith is what is needed. I guess I need to remind myself that Paul David Tripp's comment about not judging the inside of your life by the outside of other people's always leads to disaster.
All I have to say today is, that I'm glad that there are people out there who are currently doing ok, and for whom Christmas looks bright. I don't begrudge them anything. I just miss my husband and mother this year, and while they (like me) were not perfect, they were mine. We loved each other for a long time and it was easy to overlook the preciousness of that in day to day routine, or in the difficulties that Mom's aging, or the sameness of life before John's illness which brought me to the stark realization that when this Earthly life is over you don't have a chance for another conversation, or to do things better, or to show more appreciation. I don't need a pep talk, or anyone to try to make it better. As John used to say, "it is what it is", and so now I need to cling to the lover of my soul, who hasn't left me. This season should be all about Him anyway, right? Still, I'm sad!
I suppose the thing that drove me back to this blog after a brief start, and a long absence, was a realization that many of you out there are hurting too. The holiday's lights and glitter are just illuminaters of some dark and dreary parts of our lives that don't go away because it's Christmas. Those realities are even more glaringly apparent because of the myth of perfection that Lifetime movies and culture offer us. My prayer for myself, and those of you in a similar situation, this holiday is that Jesus--Immanuel, God with us--will be a present comfort and hope to you and to me. If life is good right now, rejoice! If it's sad, let's take hope that God will take us through the dark times once more.
I sat down today to watch a remake of "Christmas In Connecticut" with Dyann Cannon and Kris Kristofferson. All I can say is, "big mistake!" Not only was it a mistake because this 1992 remake is a pale shadow of the original Barbara Stanwick, Dennis Morgan film, but it was also an horrible idea because I absolutely didn't need to see any formulaic, "female is oh so sad, life is a mess, and within 90 minutes it's all fixed" kind of movie. Life just isn't like that is it? First of all, the contentment that we feel, or don't, is rarely about the things in our life, and by now most of us have realized that it's not another person that can fill up the empty holes of our lives. Why does it take so long to realize that? Perhaps a lot of life's water needs to flow under our bridges before we start to "get it". Those of you who know me, know that as a person of faith, I believe that Christ brings meaning to life and a purpose for living. But let's face it, there are those who are genuine believers who are hurting desperately this holiday season, and it doesn't help to have the urban legend of "the perfect life, in the perfect house, with the perfect children, and perfect spouse" flick messing with your head even more. It also, I'm learning, doesn't help to have other people, who's lives may currently be in a really good place, tell us how it'll get better, or how a bit more faith is what is needed. I guess I need to remind myself that Paul David Tripp's comment about not judging the inside of your life by the outside of other people's always leads to disaster.
All I have to say today is, that I'm glad that there are people out there who are currently doing ok, and for whom Christmas looks bright. I don't begrudge them anything. I just miss my husband and mother this year, and while they (like me) were not perfect, they were mine. We loved each other for a long time and it was easy to overlook the preciousness of that in day to day routine, or in the difficulties that Mom's aging, or the sameness of life before John's illness which brought me to the stark realization that when this Earthly life is over you don't have a chance for another conversation, or to do things better, or to show more appreciation. I don't need a pep talk, or anyone to try to make it better. As John used to say, "it is what it is", and so now I need to cling to the lover of my soul, who hasn't left me. This season should be all about Him anyway, right? Still, I'm sad!
I suppose the thing that drove me back to this blog after a brief start, and a long absence, was a realization that many of you out there are hurting too. The holiday's lights and glitter are just illuminaters of some dark and dreary parts of our lives that don't go away because it's Christmas. Those realities are even more glaringly apparent because of the myth of perfection that Lifetime movies and culture offer us. My prayer for myself, and those of you in a similar situation, this holiday is that Jesus--Immanuel, God with us--will be a present comfort and hope to you and to me. If life is good right now, rejoice! If it's sad, let's take hope that God will take us through the dark times once more.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Webs Aren't Just For Spiders
I'm back, but this isn't going to be pretty!
Sir Walter Scott, (Scottish author and novelist)
In recent days I have become increasingly aware of how decidedly complex my personality and actions are. I've always thought I was straight forward: growing up, my family values included being direct and speaking your mind honestly. Speaking loudly was a given, because there were so many of us. My mom and her seven siblings, and then all those cousins. My family always valued loyalty, and instilled that in me. Being trusting, and taking people at face value has always been a characteristic that I didn't learn, but embraced, from toddler hood onward. My mother told a story of how, walking me down the street in my stroller one day, I yelled, "Daddy!" to a complete stranger and had a fit because she wouldn't stop and let me hug the unknown African American man. But he took it well! Mom said that like Will Rogers, I never met a stranger. Oh yeah! And then there's that "always wanting approval and desiring for people to like me thing!" Yeah - that's been a fun part of my personality. Being me hasn't been easy, because I spin the worst of the webs I get caught in.
What has struck me lately is that the prophet Jeremiah was spot on when he wrote: "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it?". I sure know that mine is, and that I'm not very proficient at figuring out my motives and heart desires. Yes, I am straight forward, and that often is a front for being opinionated and pushing my agenda. The Bible calls that self-righteousness. Not pretty or commendable. I've recently been critical of someone I heard has been talking about me -- horrible gossip, huh? Well, what about me? Don't I stand guilty of speaking of other people's business when I'd be better keeping my mouth shut? Of course! But I deceive myself and say that I'm just sharing, or trying to better understand. If it doesn't build up or have a God honoring purpose, then it should stay behind my lips.
That trusting others thing isn't bad though, is it? Well, it is when you don't ask the important questions you should. When your "baloney meter" is ringing off the hook, and you ignore it; when words and behavior of others don't match up, there's going to be disappointment coming. And once again, the sad thing is that as often as that meter malfunctions, more often than not, it's when I am the one throwing the baloney. Blind trust of others is unsafe and unwise, just as "the unexamined life, isn't worth living". Didn't Socrates say that? Christians know from the word of God that we are practiced in self-deception, and so to not examine ourselves is to admit defeat to the flaws of our character that are second skin. Christians are going to rule and reign with Christ someday and we are called to "study to show thyself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed", and to "rightly divide the word of truth" while here on Earth, so that we might be those who show receive the responsibility to reign in Heaven. Be careful, I didn't say this to equate judgment with having a critical spirit, but with wise discernment that leads to Godly decisions and actions.
What could be bad about the friendly thing you ask? Well, when you put people's approval before God's, you're in trouble. And believe me there's trouble in River City. That's trouble with a capital "T". You become a prisoner of other people's moods, or preferences, and can sacrifice integrity to be seen in a positive light. Speaking the truth in love is often not popular, and "people pleasers" want to be popular. Ding, Ding, Ding!! Once again I win the prize.
Why am I being hard on myself? Because I deserve it. I sat in church today and wondered how things would be if every one of us would be completely transparent about our own sin. Could it be that others are having trouble with their own baloney detectors? Could they be caught in their own webs too? Maybe it's not so complex at all, but painfully simple. We're all in need of a Savior to continue the cleansing work He has already begun in us. He can change us if we are willing to humble ourselves, and that takes some honest self-examination. Hmmmm.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Hide and Go Seek
"At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. "I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is it's own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." (The Shack, pages 119-120)
Imagine being a child again and playing hide and go seek at twilight with your siblings and neighborhood friends. Everyone scatters and hides while the "Seeker" covers their eyes and counts. After the designated time the "Seeker" yells, "Here I come!", and the quest begins. He searches high and low, behind every bush, tree, or building. You have a rule that if someone is running toward home base and the "Seeker" tags them, they must also yell their name so that the others know who's been caught. If you forget to do one thing or the other, they get to "home free". Suppose you see Jonah running toward home, and running as fast as you can, you catch him just before he touches home base. You yell, "Sammy!" at the top of your lungs. Now Jonah is delighted because you have given him the gift of being home free -- you called the wrong name. But you insist that you have tagged Sammy, and after all isn't it a proven fact because you tagged a boy, who's wearing a shirt and shorts. Just like Sammy! He has short hair and is a fast runner. Must be Sammy! To cinch the call, you know you're right because he's wearing PF Fliers with no socks. There you go, it must be Sammy. On further examination you find that "Sammy's" hair is brown, while Jonah is a blond, but hey hair is hair. And come on, he clearly has on shoes and boys will be boys. By now, all the children have come out of hiding, because this scenario is far more interesting than the game itself. Everyone has an opinion and reason to support or deny your conclusion. Finally, Sammy steps forward and settles the matter. He says, "Seeker, while you were right about many things that you stated about Jonah appearing to be me, you also gave incorrect information. And while we can all argue about the description, and comparisons, the bottom line is that he's not Sammy, I am!" Identity is important!
Silly illustration that it is, a basic problem of using non-fiction characters in fictional stories is that an author should represent the real life characters with some integrity. There should be no glaring discrepancies relating to their character, physical attributes, or actions. Confusing Mother Theresa with Billy Graham would be an issue, not because one is better or worse than the other, but because they are two different people. Anyone remember the Sandra Bullock movie of a few years ago, "The Net"? A reclusive computer programmer has her identity stolen and can't convince anyone that she is who she says. Sinister happenings ensue as she tries to prove that what appears to be true, is not. Certainly Young has a right to write any fictional character in whatever way he chooses, but to present a view of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that while similar, has majorly inaccurate information when compared to the testimony of scripture, and call it "Christian" is quite another. I acknowledge that there is much about God that is a mystery. Students of the Bible have throughout the history of the church acknowledged that there is still much that we can know with confidence. What are these truths?
Once again, I'm relying heavily on Tim Challies, editor of Discerning Reader for the excellent content of his critique of The Shack. He points out that to define the Trinity we really need to make three statements. "God is three persons. Each person is fully God. There is one God." He expands upon this by saying that "each of these three is equal in divine attributes; each is fully God." Considering that the Trinity is a woven throughout the book, and key to Mack's experience at the shack, it seems wise to compare Young's trinity to that of the Bible. Parenthetically, in reading reviews, and listening to people talk about how the book has impacted them, The Shack has been repeatedly accredited with bringing understanding of the Trinity for the first time in reader's lives. So, does Young's portrayal jive with what the Bible?
In portraying God the Father as an African American woman known as Papa, and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman named Sarayu, Young immediately stands against a scripture. The Bible says that the Creator is transcendent to His creation and can't be represented in a visual portrayal. This would be a violation of the third commandment, forbidding the making of graven images. John 4:24 says that "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The representation of Christ is based on some fact, but the other members of the Trinity are diminished by Young. In Romans 1:22-23, the Apostle Paul thought that this kind of confusion was a very serious matter and called those who claimed to be wise, fools. Why? Because they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." I've been told that this is a silly argument, but then it's not others, or my, identity that is being confused. It's God we are discussing.
To further our understanding of the Trinity we need to examine the issue of hierarchy. One thing that Young captures beautifully is the harmonious functioning of the members of the Trinity. But because he can not humanly understand how roles and hierarchy do not diminish the divine community, he states that equality and submission can not coexist. On page 122 Mackenzie is told, "we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us." Young goes even farther in implying that submission would be basically evil because it is only possible, or necessary, when sin is present. "You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not." (page 124) The problem with Young's thinking is that the Bible teaches harmony, but also hierarchy. I Corinthians 11:3 states that Christ is the head of every man, the husband is head of the wife, and God the Father is the head of Christ. John 6:38 tells us that Jesus didn't come to Earth to do His own will, but to do the Father's will. Further, in John 8:28, Jesus asserts that He speaks what the Father has taught Him. Jesus, taking on the form of man, placed Himself in a subordinate role to His Father, all the while being equal in essence, says Challies. If subordination is evident Biblically, even among the sinless members of the Trinity, how can Young rightfully attribute the need for roles, and submission to the presence of sin? His conclusions are a contradiction of the Bible.
If Young truly loves God intimately, shouldn't he represent the Trinity as it is represented in scripture? Perhaps the real truth is that this book tells you more about Young and his imaginings than it does about who God really is. Young, himself asserts this on his web page, saying, "The Shack will tell you much more about me than a few facts ever could. In some ways my life is partly revealed in both characters—Willie and Mack". The bottom line to me is, if this weren't influencing people to worship a God who is in large part an illusion, that would not be a bad thing. Autobiography should not be read as non-fiction!
Modalism is a heresy that teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes (or aspects of God), rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. Young really blurs the lines between Modalism and orthodox Trinitarianism. There are several examples that show this confused thinking. First, Papa bears the scars on her wrists, and points out that Christ's suffering "cost us dearly" (page 95) It's not clear what she means by, "we were there (the cross?) together." (page 96) On page 99, Next, Papa states that "we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human." Biblically, what Young speaks of through Papa only applies to Jesus, not the Father or Holy Spirit. Even while human, Jesus maintained His divinity. The scripture never speaks of God the Father or the Holy Spirit speaking themselves into existence, or being human. Only Jesus was God incarnate. Finally, Young makes a strong point of Papa being a verb, rather than a noun. On page 204 Papa equates a universe of nouns as dead, because only verbs are "dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am verb". (page 204) Catchy, but there is a clear implication that God is a force, rather than a person. This is a decided move away from Biblical teaching on God's being and identity as the person (noun) who acted (verb) in creation and redemption, and who is lovely, holy, merciful, and love, etc. (adjective).
Lastly, I completely identify with Tim Challies alarm over how Mack behaves in the presence of God. This above all else was baffling to me, coming from the pen of someone who purports be be a Christian writer. Everything we know about those who have encountered the living God tells us that they were staggered and awed by His glory. Moses hid his face when God passed by, (Exodus 3;6) and we are told later in Exodus (33:20) that God told Moses, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live. When Isaiah is allowed into the presence of God, the glaring difference between a holy God and a sinful man, causes him to cry out in stricken repentance. Any time we get a glimpse of the throne room of God, those present are all worshiping Him and praising His glory. But Mack swears fouly before Young's god, and displays anger toward him. He treats him more as a peer than the God of the universe. Speaks volumes to me!
So, is identity important? Your own person hood is precious to you - why would the eternal, all-knowing, unchanging God's be less to Him? Young certainly has every right to present any character as He wishes, but to influence people with either misunderstanding or misrepresentation of God is a staggering responsibility. The real God has shown Himself to us, so let us not blur His identity to a hungry and spiritually starving world.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Torch Has Been Passed
Monday morning, cup of coffee, and a quiet house seems mundane and uneventful, doesn't it? Little did I know that today, August 31, 2009 was going to be a shift, a transition, and a passing of a baton. At around 9:30 the phone rang, not only jarring the quiet, but changing a familial position and perspective. Cousin Myrna, was calling to tell me that her mother had passed away at the mature age of 96. Aunt Doris was the last surviving child of Albert and Stella Sauter; the last Sauter girl. Oh my those Sauter girls were something! Into their later years they still "argued" about who had the best legs, who could kick the highest, and who cooked the most like their mother, who they called "Ma". They all could cook circles around anyone else I knew. They also loved retelling stories about their spirited brothers, who were the most gifted at...everything. Carroll, the athlete, Merle the business man, Gene, the dreamer, and Albert, the Chicago Heights policeman. Stories about the relative who had traded a pair of boots for swampy, worthless land that is now part of the Loop in Chicago, and being first settlers in Bloom Township. How their Great, great, grandfather was the first mail carrier, using his wife's laundry bag to tote the mail around, and how his wife named the area Bloom (flower in German?). They talked about Grandma never turning anyone away at mealtime and about the love their father had for their mother. Even if they squabbled, they were a family who were devoted to each other and extremely proud of their past and present accomplishments. Being born into this family meant that you were bound to be either attractive, smart, or talented, or all three, according to the sisters. Sure they were an over the top, tight club, but they were also a warm and loving family, quirks and all. The awareness that my first cousins and I are now the oldest generation, seemed almost as vivid as the realization that I was an orphan last April 1st when my 94 year old mom passed on to glory. So what memories will flood my mind in these days before the funeral? I remember going to Aunt Doris' house and seeing some of the most amazing antiques, deciding that I wanted to decorate my house in that same way. The first Buchanan house I remember visiting in Crete was so cool. I can't remember the street name, or address, but I can remember that house vividly. I loved it and was envious of my cousin's getting to live there. I also remember Aunt Doris being so stylish! She was kind enough to loan me her really beautiful hot pink pill box, feathery hat to wear with my "going away" outfit after my wedding. I think that it was her mink stole I wore on that February day in 1968. Whenever a cousin graduated, got married, had a baby, or celebrated anything, we were all there and we all shared the joys together. As the siblings grew older and our meetings became punctuated with deaths, we shared the sorrow as well. It was a wonderful family and Doris Buchanan was an integral part of it. I think about how we will all gather on Wednesday to bid our farewells; as a family once again. But now it's all different. As long as those Sauter girls were here, they kept the family traditions, and our direct link to the past was visible to us. It's still there, but dimmer with her passing. Now we are the "elder" generation of the family, and the cycle continues. My mother often told me that I reminded her of her sister Doris, and then a supporting story would follow. I wish I could tell Aunt Doris that I am pleased that there was a noticeable comparison. She was a strong woman, who worked hard her whole life. Her family was so important to her and they, and we, will miss her. Rest in peace Aunt Doris!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Back to the Shack!
I had a wonderful experience with my daughter last Sunday evening. She invited me to a "musical event" at her church, The Odes of Solomon. Now, if you are like me, you may be saying, "What are the Odes of Solomon?" It seems that they are some of the earliest known hymns of the church. They were likely "sung" by Jewish Christians in the area of Antioch (where the term Christian was first used) somewhere between 25 -120 A.D, and written during a time of intense persecution. They were dedicated to Solomon who lived in the 10th century B.C. These Odes were re-discovered in a Syriac manuscript in 1909, and have been translated into many modern languages. There are 42 Christian hymns, which were most probably chanted at sunrise on Sunday mornings when Christians met in each others homes.This hymnal is being introduced to us in this time via a website, www.theodesproject.com, and by way of visits to churches like The Orchard, in Arlington Heights. Responsively (between worship leader, soloists, choir and congregation) we had the opportunity to sing words of encouragement, worship, and truth that Jewish Christians would have been singing almost two thousand years ago. I admit I felt goosebumps cover my arms, realizing I was experiencing something that believers, who potentially lived during the time of Christ's earthly ministry, had. These were people who may have walked with Christ, served along side of Him and watched Him suffer, die, and be resurrected. I felt as though a cord of unity had been stretched across time, linking me to them. Hearing echos of those believers, singing truths found in scripture made me realize that we have been given another window into the hearts of those early Christians. We are told in Luke 1, Phil. 2:6-11, I Tim. 3:16, Rev. 4:11; 5:9-10, and 12-13 that they were known to produce "sacred songs" which they spoke to one another, by which they gave thanks; making melody in their hearts. A joyous experience of worship and expression of truth, but what does it have to do with The Shack?
How can we know if, and what God has spoken to man? From the first recorded words of scripture, the topic of revelation (or how we can know about God), became important. Few doctrines bear more vital scrutiny than this, because it centers on how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. If God exists, and has spoken, who wouldn't want to know what He said? As we sang I heard those echo's of scriptural truth that have held strong throughout time, and are present in hymns and the Bible today. Christians have been known as "being a people of the book, people who cling to the Scripture as the revealed word of God," says Tim Challies. It pertains to this discussion because the topic of revelation is also a strong thread running visibly throughout The Shack.
There has been an orthodox Judeo-Christian view that there is only one source of revelation to man kind, and that is the infallible and inspired Word of God, the Bible. In the Scriptures, the questions of "how then must we be saved?", and "how then shall we live?" are revealed to us. Challies says a good place to begin this discussion is by examining what it says about itself. He gives us three passages to assist in that discovery.
The Bible says that it is unique and sufficient. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17) we are told that "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work". Psalm 19:7 speaks of the Word of God being powerful and perfect. Additionally, Revelation 22:18, 19 states that the Scriptural canon is complete. These passages clearly show that the Bible doesn't place itself as one of many important revelations to man, but says that it is the preeminent source of God's truth. While you may or may not believe this, the point is that this has been declared by Christians from the beginning of the faith. Does The Shack support this time honored view?
Challies helps us understand the importance of the Bible to us by discussing the purpose of mediation in God's revelation to man. Mediation is not an unfamiliar idea to us today. From attempts to come to consensus in disagreements like divorce, or contract disputes, to hammering out pre-nuptual contracts between wealthy couples, we know that people often need a mediator to help them communicate and reach agreement with one another. Why is this concept central to Scripture? Communion with a completely Holy God and His created and loved ones was no small thing. Because of Adam's disobedience to God, told in Genesis, a barrier was created between them. Disobedience broke their completely harmonious fellowship. This brokenness has marked human history ever since. It has also meant that man no longer has had "im-mediate" communication with God. Now a mediator was needed in order for them to communicate. Since those first acts of disobedience, sin prohibits such personal communication, so God has given us the Bible to communicate to us how we can know Him, and how we should live. How does that view compare to William Young's portrayal of revelation?
Young writes (page 197) that "the Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules". Later (pages 202- 206), Papa says to Mack, "I have no expectations of you, so you've never disappointed me." Clearly Young's Papa doesn't help us know how to live or even have a standard for our behavior. If God doesn't reveal a explanation of how He wants to restore what has been lost, we are left to wander aimlessly looking for our own answers. Bluntly, looking at the world around us, we have NOT been so successful at finding answers to the problems that plague us internally, and externally, have we? If God doesn't give us wisdom as to what a spiritually healthy life looks like, we are again left to our own opinions about what that Christian character might be. Rather than promoting a independent, self-sufficient life, I am not denying what the Bible does says about our union with Christ alone (relationship with Him) being what allows us to live out that Christian character, from the inside out. The Bible affirms that knowing how to live comes by way of receiving eternal life. We receive this eternal life through placing our trust in Jesus, who says of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). It is just that the Bible is God's story, showing us the truth in these matters as a plumb line by which to measure human experience. It isn't relationship or revelation, take your pick. It's God's revelation shows us what God has revealed about how to have relationship and thereby be saved; it's both!
Sarayu (page 195) says, "You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours. You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship - a way of coming to be with us" (page 198). Challies says that "Young consistently downplays Scripture at the expense of personal experience. What Young indicates in The Shack is that we must expect God to reveal Himself to us in unmediated ways. God will reveal Himself to us in the Scripture, but only as one way out of many. Scripture is not given the uniqueness that it demands of itself." While God may use all of the ways Sarayu speaks of, and more, to remind us of the Father's imprint upon His creation and creatures, I feel that without the authoritative Word of God, we are subject to every "whim" that blows across our pathways. The Bible is our standard and mirror for truth.
Finally, Challies contends that most references to the Scripture in The Shack speak of abuses and are negative in tone, rather than affirmations of it's preeminent position as God's means of communicating truth to us. In my previous post I mentioned other references to the Bible being "guilt edged" (a play on the gilted pages of more expensive Bibles), and to Mack's seminary education as one that depreciates the Bible as God's revelation of truth to us today. Young states that, "God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just a book." (pages 65-66) Even though, some doctrines are deep and complicated, God's message of redemption, and life, found in the Bible is to be read straightforwardly, and is not complicated. It is plain, so that any seeking heart can discover it.
So, does William Young give the Scripture the position of authority and uniqueness that they give themselves or that Christians have accorded them over the centuries? Does he recognize the power, completeness and sufficiency of God's Word? An honest reading of The Shack answers a resounding "NO!". You may like Young as an author of fiction, but as a theologian, he's no guide around which to frame your thinking.
How can we know if, and what God has spoken to man? From the first recorded words of scripture, the topic of revelation (or how we can know about God), became important. Few doctrines bear more vital scrutiny than this, because it centers on how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. If God exists, and has spoken, who wouldn't want to know what He said? As we sang I heard those echo's of scriptural truth that have held strong throughout time, and are present in hymns and the Bible today. Christians have been known as "being a people of the book, people who cling to the Scripture as the revealed word of God," says Tim Challies. It pertains to this discussion because the topic of revelation is also a strong thread running visibly throughout The Shack.
There has been an orthodox Judeo-Christian view that there is only one source of revelation to man kind, and that is the infallible and inspired Word of God, the Bible. In the Scriptures, the questions of "how then must we be saved?", and "how then shall we live?" are revealed to us. Challies says a good place to begin this discussion is by examining what it says about itself. He gives us three passages to assist in that discovery.
The Bible says that it is unique and sufficient. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17) we are told that "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work". Psalm 19:7 speaks of the Word of God being powerful and perfect. Additionally, Revelation 22:18, 19 states that the Scriptural canon is complete. These passages clearly show that the Bible doesn't place itself as one of many important revelations to man, but says that it is the preeminent source of God's truth. While you may or may not believe this, the point is that this has been declared by Christians from the beginning of the faith. Does The Shack support this time honored view?
Challies helps us understand the importance of the Bible to us by discussing the purpose of mediation in God's revelation to man. Mediation is not an unfamiliar idea to us today. From attempts to come to consensus in disagreements like divorce, or contract disputes, to hammering out pre-nuptual contracts between wealthy couples, we know that people often need a mediator to help them communicate and reach agreement with one another. Why is this concept central to Scripture? Communion with a completely Holy God and His created and loved ones was no small thing. Because of Adam's disobedience to God, told in Genesis, a barrier was created between them. Disobedience broke their completely harmonious fellowship. This brokenness has marked human history ever since. It has also meant that man no longer has had "im-mediate" communication with God. Now a mediator was needed in order for them to communicate. Since those first acts of disobedience, sin prohibits such personal communication, so God has given us the Bible to communicate to us how we can know Him, and how we should live. How does that view compare to William Young's portrayal of revelation?
Young writes (page 197) that "the Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules". Later (pages 202- 206), Papa says to Mack, "I have no expectations of you, so you've never disappointed me." Clearly Young's Papa doesn't help us know how to live or even have a standard for our behavior. If God doesn't reveal a explanation of how He wants to restore what has been lost, we are left to wander aimlessly looking for our own answers. Bluntly, looking at the world around us, we have NOT been so successful at finding answers to the problems that plague us internally, and externally, have we? If God doesn't give us wisdom as to what a spiritually healthy life looks like, we are again left to our own opinions about what that Christian character might be. Rather than promoting a independent, self-sufficient life, I am not denying what the Bible does says about our union with Christ alone (relationship with Him) being what allows us to live out that Christian character, from the inside out. The Bible affirms that knowing how to live comes by way of receiving eternal life. We receive this eternal life through placing our trust in Jesus, who says of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). It is just that the Bible is God's story, showing us the truth in these matters as a plumb line by which to measure human experience. It isn't relationship or revelation, take your pick. It's God's revelation shows us what God has revealed about how to have relationship and thereby be saved; it's both!
Sarayu (page 195) says, "You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours. You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship - a way of coming to be with us" (page 198). Challies says that "Young consistently downplays Scripture at the expense of personal experience. What Young indicates in The Shack is that we must expect God to reveal Himself to us in unmediated ways. God will reveal Himself to us in the Scripture, but only as one way out of many. Scripture is not given the uniqueness that it demands of itself." While God may use all of the ways Sarayu speaks of, and more, to remind us of the Father's imprint upon His creation and creatures, I feel that without the authoritative Word of God, we are subject to every "whim" that blows across our pathways. The Bible is our standard and mirror for truth.
Finally, Challies contends that most references to the Scripture in The Shack speak of abuses and are negative in tone, rather than affirmations of it's preeminent position as God's means of communicating truth to us. In my previous post I mentioned other references to the Bible being "guilt edged" (a play on the gilted pages of more expensive Bibles), and to Mack's seminary education as one that depreciates the Bible as God's revelation of truth to us today. Young states that, "God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just a book." (pages 65-66) Even though, some doctrines are deep and complicated, God's message of redemption, and life, found in the Bible is to be read straightforwardly, and is not complicated. It is plain, so that any seeking heart can discover it.
So, does William Young give the Scripture the position of authority and uniqueness that they give themselves or that Christians have accorded them over the centuries? Does he recognize the power, completeness and sufficiency of God's Word? An honest reading of The Shack answers a resounding "NO!". You may like Young as an author of fiction, but as a theologian, he's no guide around which to frame your thinking.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Shaq Attack
Well my friends, it's a busy time and I'm finding it challenging to get back to blogging about The Shack. Today's post will be short, but will give you more background to understand the next few blogs about this book. Thanks for your patience.
During the 1993 NBA Season Shaquille ONeal broke two backboards, and these acts later were declared to be "Shaq Attacks". The strength and force required to do this is pretty impressive, considering that you are flying through the air as it happens, with the other team's players trying to stop you with opposing measures of force. The end results are often, ah, shattering! Please forgive the cheesy play on words, but this was just too rich to pass up.
I have been quite pleased to receive feedback from many of you about the first two posts on Cheryl's World. Most have been positive, but there have been some who have disagreed with my assessment of The Shack. Let me say that this is exactly what this blog is about. I don't want to only hear from those who agree with me. I eagerly anticipate a diversity of opinions and perspectives from those who are kind enough to respond. What I hope I will not see is uncivil attacks. The results of that can, and often are, as shattering to relationships as those back boards that Shaq broke in the 1993 season. Os Guinness, amazing author and cultural commentator, says that it is time for Americans to engage in civil conversations about important issues. For too long we have attacked each other and not ideas. My hope for this blog is that everyday people will be able to share reactions to some ideas and topics that I put "out there". Thank you to those who have responded in agreement, and disagreement, because you have done so civilly.
By way of background information, I want to state that while I will value the opinions that others share, I hope to hold my own views to a very specific standard; the scriptures. I believe that God has spoken to us in the these Scriptures, even though these books were written by human authors. I also believe that the Old and New Testaments are without error in their original manuscripts. To the best of my ability this will be my guide in my posts and responses to you. God's revelation to man, the Bible answers major questions of life: "Why am I here?", "What's wrong with the world?", "What's wrong with me?", "How can I live with purpose and meaning?", and "What happens when I die?". Young, himself, tries to answer another one of those major questions, "Where is God when there's so much pain and hurt in the world?" While not all readers may agree with an orthodox Christian view, it is the sole perspective from which I will write. When I was teaching, and we were writing concept based curriculum, a final question we always asked was, "So what?" The final question I will come to again and again is, "Who said?" Authority, as my friend Laura commented, is always the bottom line". Who said it, and why is their voice to be believed above all others, will always find it's authority and bottom line in the Bible.
While The Shack is a work of fiction, it clearly intends to communicate theological truths (actually, when anyone speaks of God, his nature, and plan they are wandering into theological territory, it's just that not all opinions are equally Biblical). As Tim Challies, blogger, and editor of Discerning Reader, says, "...of course theology is not enough; it is a means rather than merely an end. We do not wish to only know about God, but also wish to show evidence that we know Him. We give evidence of this in the way we live our lives." Knowledge and God-honoring lives are interconnected, and should be inseparable. Mack experienced a great deal of pain at the hands of his father. Does Young make the father a non-religious person, clearly a deplorable human being? No, he sets up a straw man, making him a Bible quoting monster, implying that the people who know the most about God are the ones who live the least like Christ. As early as page 65, Young characterizes seminaries as teaching that God doesn't speak directly to people today, but they have reduced His voice to paper, and that His voice can only be correctly heard "if moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects" (page 66). This is contrasted by Mack, the man who swears in the presence of God, and who attributes to Him evil intent, as the one who receives personal communication from Papa. When Mack says, "Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book," it seems to me he is suggesting that the scriptures are confining and restricting, rather than liberating. In his own little play on words, he refers to the gilt edges of a leather bound Bible as possibly being "guilt edges", I think implying that the scriptures are about condemnation rather than the life affirming message that Christ came to share; that those words repress and destroy, rather than bring life and freedom. The irony that Young minimizes, or perhaps ignores, is that to experience this liberation he so desires, we must begin with knowing that it is available, and that knowledge is found in the scriptures.
In the next blog I'll look at The Shack's view of faith and how we can know God. Thanks for reading.
During the 1993 NBA Season Shaquille ONeal broke two backboards, and these acts later were declared to be "Shaq Attacks". The strength and force required to do this is pretty impressive, considering that you are flying through the air as it happens, with the other team's players trying to stop you with opposing measures of force. The end results are often, ah, shattering! Please forgive the cheesy play on words, but this was just too rich to pass up.
I have been quite pleased to receive feedback from many of you about the first two posts on Cheryl's World. Most have been positive, but there have been some who have disagreed with my assessment of The Shack. Let me say that this is exactly what this blog is about. I don't want to only hear from those who agree with me. I eagerly anticipate a diversity of opinions and perspectives from those who are kind enough to respond. What I hope I will not see is uncivil attacks. The results of that can, and often are, as shattering to relationships as those back boards that Shaq broke in the 1993 season. Os Guinness, amazing author and cultural commentator, says that it is time for Americans to engage in civil conversations about important issues. For too long we have attacked each other and not ideas. My hope for this blog is that everyday people will be able to share reactions to some ideas and topics that I put "out there". Thank you to those who have responded in agreement, and disagreement, because you have done so civilly.
By way of background information, I want to state that while I will value the opinions that others share, I hope to hold my own views to a very specific standard; the scriptures. I believe that God has spoken to us in the these Scriptures, even though these books were written by human authors. I also believe that the Old and New Testaments are without error in their original manuscripts. To the best of my ability this will be my guide in my posts and responses to you. God's revelation to man, the Bible answers major questions of life: "Why am I here?", "What's wrong with the world?", "What's wrong with me?", "How can I live with purpose and meaning?", and "What happens when I die?". Young, himself, tries to answer another one of those major questions, "Where is God when there's so much pain and hurt in the world?" While not all readers may agree with an orthodox Christian view, it is the sole perspective from which I will write. When I was teaching, and we were writing concept based curriculum, a final question we always asked was, "So what?" The final question I will come to again and again is, "Who said?" Authority, as my friend Laura commented, is always the bottom line". Who said it, and why is their voice to be believed above all others, will always find it's authority and bottom line in the Bible.
While The Shack is a work of fiction, it clearly intends to communicate theological truths (actually, when anyone speaks of God, his nature, and plan they are wandering into theological territory, it's just that not all opinions are equally Biblical). As Tim Challies, blogger, and editor of Discerning Reader, says, "...of course theology is not enough; it is a means rather than merely an end. We do not wish to only know about God, but also wish to show evidence that we know Him. We give evidence of this in the way we live our lives." Knowledge and God-honoring lives are interconnected, and should be inseparable. Mack experienced a great deal of pain at the hands of his father. Does Young make the father a non-religious person, clearly a deplorable human being? No, he sets up a straw man, making him a Bible quoting monster, implying that the people who know the most about God are the ones who live the least like Christ. As early as page 65, Young characterizes seminaries as teaching that God doesn't speak directly to people today, but they have reduced His voice to paper, and that His voice can only be correctly heard "if moderated and deciphered by proper authorities and intellects" (page 66). This is contrasted by Mack, the man who swears in the presence of God, and who attributes to Him evil intent, as the one who receives personal communication from Papa. When Mack says, "Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book," it seems to me he is suggesting that the scriptures are confining and restricting, rather than liberating. In his own little play on words, he refers to the gilt edges of a leather bound Bible as possibly being "guilt edges", I think implying that the scriptures are about condemnation rather than the life affirming message that Christ came to share; that those words repress and destroy, rather than bring life and freedom. The irony that Young minimizes, or perhaps ignores, is that to experience this liberation he so desires, we must begin with knowing that it is available, and that knowledge is found in the scriptures.
In the next blog I'll look at The Shack's view of faith and how we can know God. Thanks for reading.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Shack
Imagine yourself walking down a pathway, sides strewn with signs, declaring in bold print, "Beware, huge chasm ahead!", "Beware, huge drop off 50 feet ahead!", "...ten feet ahead!" and so on. It would indeed be a foolish person who rushed ahead heedlessly, ignoring their peril. What a different story it would be for that same person to be out on a leisurely stroll down a beautifully landscaped pathway, when without warning, they arrived at the same precipice of danger, to be either saved by quick reflexes or to plunge to a horrible death. Michael Youssef, Pastor of The Church of the Apostles, in Atlanta, GA has stated that "a half truth, an "almost right", is far more dangerous than out and out evil. Relevance? When we are lulled into a false sense of security, we are not as diligent as we will be when we clearly identify danger signs flashing before our eyes. The church specifically, and American readers in general may be running headlong toward just such a theological cliff as they have read, interacted about, and made claims of the life changing power in William P. Young's The Shack.
I realize that many of you may have read this book and were moved by its beautiful portrayal of the loving and inclusive inter-relatedness of the members of the Trinity. Or you may have come away, stunned by the compelling reality of the indwelling presence of Christ, or the glorious picture of what Earth could be like if not broken by the effects of the fall. Like me, you may have been struck with the vital role of relationship in the work of the Holy Spirit within us. Or you may have just been pulled along in the current of a cultural love affair with this book, which is currently number 12 on the Amazon best seller list. It has been reviewed by 3,564 readers (compared to the number one book, Mastering The Art of French Cooking, reviewed by 85 customers). What a staggering difference! Something is clearly afoot with the almost universal appeal and acceptance of The Shack.
So what is so wrong with The Shack? Why the outcry from all of those "theological types" (and a some of the rest of us) about the danger of this book? Why stir up controversy? Aren't these concerns just overreactions or doctrinal nitpicking? My contention is that it fits Michael Youssef's warning about the danger of half-truths, and "almost there's", being more dangerous than out and out evil; while embracing it's views unquestioningly are the equivalent of plummeting over a spiritual cliff.
First, there's a special danger in packaging philosophy or theology in a fictional genre. The truth of the matter is that when anyone describes God, the Trinity, how a person can receive eternal life, and an afterlife, they have crossed a line into Theology. When encountering a powerful story, people are often disarmed by the emotional response that it evokes, and caught up in the story itself. People will say, "it's just a story, not meant to instruct or be a theology textbook". The potential danger of stories can be in that they inspire, motivate, teach, and influence. Words convey meaning, and words frame ideas and ideologies. Obviously, few read a work of fiction as alerted to the author's worldview, or theological beliefs, as they would to a book on systematic theology. Does that mean that the authors of both types of books are neutral, or non-theological, in their views? Of course not! Neither author or reader comes to any written text "tabula rasa". We all have prior knowledge and experience that come with us, which is reflected in the content of what we write or the understanding of what we read. Ask the authors of books on topics of Opus Dei, The Holy Grail, or the sacred feminine cults if they saw an increase in sales after the book and movie, The DaVinci Code was released. Jesus understood the power of a story in His use of parables throughout His teaching ministry. Stories move and influence the human soul.
At one time, when even the general public were somewhat Biblically literate, and believers knew doctrine more intimately, a book like this would never have been viewed as evangelical, neutral, or compared to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. The sad state of affairs is that today even those of us in the church are not grounded enough in our theology to read through The Shack, and identify the warning signs, and inherent dangers. I think an evidence of this is it's being sold in Christian book stores as well as by secular booksellers. The only rational I can see is that it's a huge money maker. Why have we all become such undiscerning readers? Could some of the reason for this lack of discernment be a general distaste for studying doctrine, seeing it as the proprietary realm of the seminarian? Certainly we can say that our theology is often fuzzy at best. Only as we grow in developing a robust view of God's majestic story as it unfolds His redemptive work, will we be able to embrace theology as essential, and the study of God and His purposes as practical, rather than being dry and seminary bound. Young has a view of God that is sometimes clear, and often vague. We, the church must become better equipped to respond to it's half-truths and "almost right" views that lead us toward a powerless gospel, and weak and diluted theology, leading to an insufficient faith. As Charles Colson has said, "Stay out of The
Shack!"
In my next post, I'll share some specific concerns that I have about the theological content of this book.
I realize that many of you may have read this book and were moved by its beautiful portrayal of the loving and inclusive inter-relatedness of the members of the Trinity. Or you may have come away, stunned by the compelling reality of the indwelling presence of Christ, or the glorious picture of what Earth could be like if not broken by the effects of the fall. Like me, you may have been struck with the vital role of relationship in the work of the Holy Spirit within us. Or you may have just been pulled along in the current of a cultural love affair with this book, which is currently number 12 on the Amazon best seller list. It has been reviewed by 3,564 readers (compared to the number one book, Mastering The Art of French Cooking, reviewed by 85 customers). What a staggering difference! Something is clearly afoot with the almost universal appeal and acceptance of The Shack.
So what is so wrong with The Shack? Why the outcry from all of those "theological types" (and a some of the rest of us) about the danger of this book? Why stir up controversy? Aren't these concerns just overreactions or doctrinal nitpicking? My contention is that it fits Michael Youssef's warning about the danger of half-truths, and "almost there's", being more dangerous than out and out evil; while embracing it's views unquestioningly are the equivalent of plummeting over a spiritual cliff.
First, there's a special danger in packaging philosophy or theology in a fictional genre. The truth of the matter is that when anyone describes God, the Trinity, how a person can receive eternal life, and an afterlife, they have crossed a line into Theology. When encountering a powerful story, people are often disarmed by the emotional response that it evokes, and caught up in the story itself. People will say, "it's just a story, not meant to instruct or be a theology textbook". The potential danger of stories can be in that they inspire, motivate, teach, and influence. Words convey meaning, and words frame ideas and ideologies. Obviously, few read a work of fiction as alerted to the author's worldview, or theological beliefs, as they would to a book on systematic theology. Does that mean that the authors of both types of books are neutral, or non-theological, in their views? Of course not! Neither author or reader comes to any written text "tabula rasa". We all have prior knowledge and experience that come with us, which is reflected in the content of what we write or the understanding of what we read. Ask the authors of books on topics of Opus Dei, The Holy Grail, or the sacred feminine cults if they saw an increase in sales after the book and movie, The DaVinci Code was released. Jesus understood the power of a story in His use of parables throughout His teaching ministry. Stories move and influence the human soul.
At one time, when even the general public were somewhat Biblically literate, and believers knew doctrine more intimately, a book like this would never have been viewed as evangelical, neutral, or compared to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. The sad state of affairs is that today even those of us in the church are not grounded enough in our theology to read through The Shack, and identify the warning signs, and inherent dangers. I think an evidence of this is it's being sold in Christian book stores as well as by secular booksellers. The only rational I can see is that it's a huge money maker. Why have we all become such undiscerning readers? Could some of the reason for this lack of discernment be a general distaste for studying doctrine, seeing it as the proprietary realm of the seminarian? Certainly we can say that our theology is often fuzzy at best. Only as we grow in developing a robust view of God's majestic story as it unfolds His redemptive work, will we be able to embrace theology as essential, and the study of God and His purposes as practical, rather than being dry and seminary bound. Young has a view of God that is sometimes clear, and often vague. We, the church must become better equipped to respond to it's half-truths and "almost right" views that lead us toward a powerless gospel, and weak and diluted theology, leading to an insufficient faith. As Charles Colson has said, "Stay out of The
Shack!"
In my next post, I'll share some specific concerns that I have about the theological content of this book.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Greetings from Cheryl's World.
Julie and Julia isn't just the story of Julie Powell and Julia Child. It's a story of casting big dreams, influence, daunting challenges of life, and the rewards of perseverance. So how does this relate to me, and possibly to some of you?
Well, the URL for this site is http://askthequeen.blogspot.com for a personal, and amusing reason. Many years ago, when I was teaching 3rd grade, a student came into the classroom after recess and in response to my request that he get ready for Math, fell to the floor in a continuous bowing motion, saying, "As you wish my Queen. We're not worthy!" (May have been an old Saturday Night Live bit, in which case I don't want to know how a third grader knew it.) It caught on, and I became known as "The Queen" and my classroom was called "Wituckeland", where it was laughingly said we were in a monarchy, and that refusal to comply could lead to beheading. Don't think I'm morbid or a power freak; third graders loved it. (It also was, and is, the antithesis of how I view classroom management and all interactions.)
Over the years I became known as The Queen, in sometimes loving and sometimes mocking ways. Relevance? In our own world's we all have dreams and challenges. We all know the personal disappointment that comes from giving up, and we know the exhilaration coming from reaching goals and achieving success. Over the next months I hope to write about dreams, realized and lost, and challenges, personal and professional. I'd like to discuss benefits gained from perseverance, and perils of giving up. Things we all face in life.
I have always felt that it would be pretentious for me to use a blog as a forum to express my own views. I have no PhD or training as a philosopher or theologian. So why begin this written journey in which I hope to look at the experiences of life and relate them to my worldview? I suppose I've finally come into the 21st century, realizing that we have a multitude of ways to communicate, and yet people seem lonelier than ever. As life becomes increasingly complex and problem-filled, we are all looking for answers that meet those complex issues. Beyond that, we all editorialize every time we offer an opinion or share our particular perspective on how life would work best. So I'll ask my voice to the mix in this way. The bottom line is I love to interact with people and hope that this may become a forum to achieve that purpose, hopefully shedding more light than heat. If you are so inclined, come on in to Cheryl's World and sit down for an occasional chat.
Let the journey begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)