As I sit here typing, my fingers are probably the only part of my body that does not hurt right now. You see, this week I began working out with a trainer...and not just any trainer...a psycho trainer. Keith (or "Big K" as I usually call him because I'm out of breath) LOVES this fitness stuff. He eats, sleeps and breathes it...and he's made it his goal to whip me and my training partners (my fellow church staff members) into shape. And whip he has done! Nearly every muscle in my body is intensely sore, or was intensely sore and is now only "really sore." You know, the kind of sore that causes you to just let your back itch because it's more painful to even try to scratch it!) So why do I do this? Why do I put up with the pain? The answer is because I know that 6 weeks from now I'll be in better health, I'll feel better, and I'll look better (and stop growing out of my clothes). I grew up hearing coaches say, "no pain, no gain." And I believe it.
Tonight I was also reading "The Shack" by William P. Young. I realize that it has been somewhat controversial in staunch religious circles; but then again, "religion" always challenges fresh thinking. You can say what you want to about the book's theology (or lack thereof) and the metaphors the author chooses, it paints a pretty fresh picture of how God (the Trinity) loves and interacts with us. I won't spoil the book for you if you haven't read it, but there is a chapter in which the main character, Mack, is talking with the Holy Spirit about "good" and "evil" and she challenges his definition of "good." (Yes, I said "she" - in this book, the Holy Spirit is depicted in the form of a woman - hence the controversy!) She suggests that humans are not capable within ourselves to define good and evil, because our perspective is skewed by our humanity. For instance, what benefits us we typically define as good, and what we don't like we define as evil. Unfortunately, there are 6 billion of us on the planet, and we all have different definitions.
Instead, she suggests that "evil" is simply the absence of God, just like "dark" is the absence of light. Where there is light, the darkness is gone...so where there is God, evil is not there. The point she's trying to make, is that when pain and hurt come into our life, our natural instinct is to flee from it and call it "evil." In reality, though, that's not always the case. Sometimes God allows pain into our life. Our natural tendency is to call it "evil," but in reality, God uses the pain to grow and mature us. I've recently been undergoing some heavy stress and trauma in multiple areas of my life...and naturally, all I want to do is to cry "evil" and run screaming into the woods. I really want to be found faithful at the end of this, but sometimes I just don't know how I'm gonna make it through. In my Bible study time the other day, however, I read this...
James 1:2-4
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
Now, I've read the "consider it pure joy" part hundreds of time; but the line that caught my heart's eye this time was verse 4..."perseverance MUST finish its work so that you may be MATURE and COMPLETE, not lacking anything." So, the trials are necessary to develop perseverance; and perseverance is necessary for us to become mature and complete.
If I believe that God is over everything (which I do); and if I believe that God is always with me (which I do); and if I believe that He always has my best interests at heart (which I do); THEN, I have to look at pain, trials and frustrations differently. I have to see them, and the pain they cause me, as tools that God is using in my life. The pain I feel in my body right now from working out is intense...BUT, I know that the pain leads to muscular and cardiovascular growth. And I endure it with a smile because I know the outcome in my body will be worth it.
So why do I treat the trials of life any different? Why do I look at something unpleasant and cry "evil," instead of powering through it like I am this workout thing? God has my best interests at heart...there's no doubt in that. And just because it hurts, doesn't make it bad. And in point of fact, according to this scripture in James, sometimes it HAS to hurt in order to produce maturity in you. After all...no pain, no gain!
Tonight I was also reading "The Shack" by William P. Young. I realize that it has been somewhat controversial in staunch religious circles; but then again, "religion" always challenges fresh thinking. You can say what you want to about the book's theology (or lack thereof) and the metaphors the author chooses, it paints a pretty fresh picture of how God (the Trinity) loves and interacts with us. I won't spoil the book for you if you haven't read it, but there is a chapter in which the main character, Mack, is talking with the Holy Spirit about "good" and "evil" and she challenges his definition of "good." (Yes, I said "she" - in this book, the Holy Spirit is depicted in the form of a woman - hence the controversy!) She suggests that humans are not capable within ourselves to define good and evil, because our perspective is skewed by our humanity. For instance, what benefits us we typically define as good, and what we don't like we define as evil. Unfortunately, there are 6 billion of us on the planet, and we all have different definitions.
Instead, she suggests that "evil" is simply the absence of God, just like "dark" is the absence of light. Where there is light, the darkness is gone...so where there is God, evil is not there. The point she's trying to make, is that when pain and hurt come into our life, our natural instinct is to flee from it and call it "evil." In reality, though, that's not always the case. Sometimes God allows pain into our life. Our natural tendency is to call it "evil," but in reality, God uses the pain to grow and mature us. I've recently been undergoing some heavy stress and trauma in multiple areas of my life...and naturally, all I want to do is to cry "evil" and run screaming into the woods. I really want to be found faithful at the end of this, but sometimes I just don't know how I'm gonna make it through. In my Bible study time the other day, however, I read this...
James 1:2-4
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
Now, I've read the "consider it pure joy" part hundreds of time; but the line that caught my heart's eye this time was verse 4..."perseverance MUST finish its work so that you may be MATURE and COMPLETE, not lacking anything." So, the trials are necessary to develop perseverance; and perseverance is necessary for us to become mature and complete.
If I believe that God is over everything (which I do); and if I believe that God is always with me (which I do); and if I believe that He always has my best interests at heart (which I do); THEN, I have to look at pain, trials and frustrations differently. I have to see them, and the pain they cause me, as tools that God is using in my life. The pain I feel in my body right now from working out is intense...BUT, I know that the pain leads to muscular and cardiovascular growth. And I endure it with a smile because I know the outcome in my body will be worth it.
So why do I treat the trials of life any different? Why do I look at something unpleasant and cry "evil," instead of powering through it like I am this workout thing? God has my best interests at heart...there's no doubt in that. And just because it hurts, doesn't make it bad. And in point of fact, according to this scripture in James, sometimes it HAS to hurt in order to produce maturity in you. After all...no pain, no gain!
Posts
2 comments:
Gary, good to see you on facebook, and great to get caught up with; where you are and what you are doing. I read this blog, and thought I would share a response. I hope you will read it.
The controversy about 'The Shack' is not about likes and dislikes, differences, preferences, or opinions. It sets itself up against Scripture, and anything that sets itself up against Scripture is heresy, i.e. false teaching. It doesn't matter if it is more entertaining, or culturally acceptable. God is not someone we have the freedom to determine who He is and what and how He does what He does. God is someone we discover through His revealed word about Himself. The author of 'The Shack' is playing fast and loose with the Scriptures, and is going down a very dangerous path. As you say yourself, worship is to be done in spirit and in TRUTH, in all of life all the time. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, it identifies things as they actually are, and it can not be changed conformed or diminished in any way. Psalm 119:160 says that the sum of God's word is truth, John 14:6 Jesus claims to be truth, and John 17:17 says that God's word is truth. So we can know truth in the person and works of Jesus Christ through the reveled word of God. ANYTHING that sets itself up against what the Scriptures reveal is heresy. 'The Shack' is heresy, and should be treated as such.
Review: From a friend of William Paul Young
Book Review
The Shack
By William Paul Young
Seldom does one have the opportunity to review a work of fiction written by a friend that has risen to the top of best seller lists. Recently The Shack has been approaching sales of one million copies. There is even talk about making the book into a movie. But while the novel breaks sales records, it also breaks with the traditional understanding of God and Christian theology. And therein lies the rub. Does a work of Christian
fiction have to be doctrinally correct?
From the viewpoint of the plot, the story is quite common. The book is the fictional retelling by Willie of the story of his friend, Mackenzie Phillips, who has been estranged from God for several years. His past experiences under an abusive father leave him bitter toward God, the Bible, and the ministry. When his youngest daughter is kidnapped and brutally killed in a mountain shack, Mack’s anger freezes his total outlook in sadness and despair. Then one day he returns to the shack and encounters the Trinity in the
form of a large African woman (“Papa” =the Father), a Jewish carpenter (=Jesus Christ), and a small Asian woman by the name Sarayu (=the Holy Spirit). By their discourses with Mack these three lead him on a mythical journey to discover a fresh meaning of God’s love and forgiveness.
Who is the author? William P. Young, a man I have known for over a dozen years. About four years ago Paul embraced “Christian universalism,” and has defended this view on several occasions. While he frequently disavows “general universalism,” the idea that many roads lead to God, he has affirmed his hope that all will be reconciled to God either this side of death or after death.
Christian universalism (also known as universal reconciliation) asserts that love is the supreme attribute of God that trumps all others. His love reaches beyond the grave to save all those who refuse Christ throughout their lifetimes. Even fallen angels, and the Devil himself, will one day repent, be delivered from hell enter heaven. There cannot be left in the universe any being whom the love of God does not conquer; hence the words, universal reconciliation. This view of future destinies claims many texts that seem to assert that the reconciliation Jesus accomplished on the cross extends to all creatures (Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor.
5:16-20; Col. 1:19-20), that all universally will confess him as Lord (Phil. 2:6-11), and that God’s desire that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) will be accomplished. Nothing can thwart God’s will and love.
On current web sites the editors of The Shack indicate that they worked with the book for over a year. The editors went through and eliminated, they claim, the universalism as defined above. Yet a careful reading shows that The Shack rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation. This is not unexpected when the author (in his “Acknowledgments”) cites many writers who have influenced him, several of which are universalists.
Many others have pointed out the theological errors they find in the book. They fault Young’s view of revelation and the Bible, his presentation of God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ death and the meaning of reconciliation, and the subversion of institutions that God has ordered, such as the government and the local church. But the common thread tying all these errors together is Christian universalism. A study of the history of universal reconciliation that goes back as early as the third century shows that all of these doctrinal deviations, including opposition to the local church, are characteristic of universalism. In modern times it has undermined evangelical faith in Europe and America. It has joined with Unitarianism to form the Unitarian-Universalist church.
By comparing the creeds of universalism with a careful reading of The Shack one discovers how deeply universalism is embedded within the book. Here is the evidence in brief:
1) The universalist creed of 1899 affirmed that “there is one God whose nature is love.” Young asserts that God “cannot act apart from love” (p. 102), and that God purposes what he does always as an expression of love (p. 191);
2) There is no eternal punishment for sin. The creed of 1899 again asserts that God “will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.” Similarly, Young denies that Papa (God) “pours out wrath and throws people” into hell. God does not punish sin; it’s his “joy to cure it” (p. 120). Papa “redeems” final judgment (p. 127). God will not “condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from his presence and apart from his love” (p. 162).
3) There is an incomplete picture of the enormity of sin and evil. Satan as the great deceiver and instigator of the temptation to sin goes unmentioned in Young’s discussion of the fall (pp. 134-137);
4) There is a subjugation of God’s justice to his love—a central tenet of universalism. The creed of 1878 asserts that God’s attribute of justice is “born of love and limited by love.” Young affirms that God chose “the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love,” and that this is a better way than that God should have exercised justice (pp. 164-165);
5) There is great error in the portrayal of the Trinity. Young asserts that the whole Trinity became incarnate as the Son of God, and the whole Trinity was crucified (p. 99). Both Jesus and Papa (God) bear the marks of crucifixion in their hands (contra. Isa. 53:4-10). Young’s error leads to modalism, that God is singular and at different times assumes the different modes of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a heresy condemned by the early church. Young also makes God into a goddess; moreover, he breaks the second commandment by imaging God the Father as a person;
6) Reconciliation is effective for all without exercising faith. Papa asserts that he is reconciled to the whole world, not just to those who believe (p. 192). The creeds of universalism, both of 1878 and 1899, never mention faith;
7) There is no future judgment. God will never force his will on anyone, even in his capacity as judge, for this is contrary to love (p. 145). God submits to humans, and humans submit to God in a “circle of relationship”;
8) All are equally children of God and loved equally by him (p. 155-156). In a future revolution of “love and kindness” all people out of love will confess Jesus as Lord (p. 248).
9) The institution of the church is rejected as diabolical. Jesus claims that he “never has, never will” create institutions (p. 178). Evangelical churches are an obstacle to universalism.
10) Finally, the Bible is discounted in this novel. It is a book of guilt rather than hope,
encouragement, and revelation.
Near the beginning of this review I raised the question: “Does a work of fiction have to be doctrinally correct?” In this case the answer is yes, for Young is deliberately theological. The fiction serves the theology, not vice-versa. Another question is: “Do not the good points of the novel outweigh the bad?” Again, if one uses doctrinal impurity to teach how to be restored to God, the end result is that one is not restored in a biblical way to the God of the Bible. Finally, one may ask: “Could not this book lay the foundation for seeking a growing relationship with God based in the Bible?” Of course, this may be possible. But in light of the errors the potential for going astray is as great as the potential for growth. Young offers no direction regarding spiritual growth. He discounts the Bible and the institutional church
with its ordinances. If one finds a deeper relationship with God that reflects biblical fidelity it will be in spite of The Shack and not because of it.
Young has written a creative, provocative novel. Unfortunately, its creativity strays from an evangelical understanding of core doctrines. In the sixth century the church of Jesus Christ called universal reconciliation heresy, and it has treated this belief as such ever since.
James B. DeYoung, Th.D., is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western
Seminary, where he has taught for over thirty years.
Hi guys...
So, I have to say that I went into reading The Shack with a great deal of skepticism. I wasn't expecting to like or agree with it, mostly because I haven't really agreed with much of what I've read lately. I usually find myself between the established denominations and the emergent church. I think they're both wrong about a lot, but right about a lot also.
That's how I feel about The Shack. And actually, reading the book gave me an interesting insight into how it can be both wrong and useful. If you haven't read the book, spoilers ahead...
I believe that the relationship portrayed in the book between "Papa" and Mack is a perfect example of how Mr. Young's theology, while flawed and imperfect, serves a purpose for many.
Mack couldn't have interacted with a "male" Father figure God when he first went to the shack. His past blocked him from having any real openness with another man. Until he forgave his father and dealt with his own pain, he really couldn't have any meaningful relationship with who God actually is. God needed to show Himself in a fundamentally inaccurate manner in order to show Himself as He truly is.
We do the same thing all the time with our children. When we give them rules, sometimes we can't really explain why the rules are useful, or why they apply differently to different people in different circumstances. That would be too difficult for the child to comprehend, so we simplify the rules or their application so that our children can understand and obey them.
We are all wrong about God. We all have inaccurate perceptions about who He is, what the Bible really means, and how He relates to us. But that doesn't mean that truth is unknowable, or that some truth can co-exist with some lies and not be useful.
There are many theologically sound Christians who have no meaningful relationship with God. Understanding Him is not the same as knowing Him. So we must look at stories like The Shack and take them for what they are: inaccurate and incomplete pictures of a God we can only see as through a mirror dimly, yet still hold on to the truth that shines through. We examine the story and hold fast to what is true. And I believe that there is truth in the book. As I said, I have my problems with Mr. Young's theology, especially regarding authority and institutions, but he does have some really insightful things to say, and I'm not quite ready to throw out the entire book as heresy. But I do think, as with most powerful texts, it should be carefully read and young Christians should be especially careful.
But of course, I could be wrong. :)
Post a Comment