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 31, 2009
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)