I'm sure some of you guys have heard about "The Shack" - a New York Times' bestseller about a father who loses a daughter to a serial killer and then has a lengthy encounter with God that renovates his heart. Well, I have just read it.
And you guessed it, here's a rant.
The problem with this book is that its main purpose is to paint a picture of God that makes sense to the human mind. The story is simply the author's "illustration" that he uses to make points. Unfortunately, I find much (read: most) of the author's theology to be very unbiblical and very mind-driven.
As you can tell, this book bothered the crap out of me on a number of levels. The main character (Mack) is portrayed as a complacent "Christian" that we see so often around us today. He has no real relationship with the Lord, no love for the Word, not even any sense of fundamental understanding about the nature of God. What bothers me is that when God shows up, HE IS NOT REBUKED.
You can probably figure out where this goes: it paints a picture of a god who is "Love personified" in the mind of a human. This god has no anger, no wrath, no hatred of sin; rather he loves those who do evil and hate him, and all he wants to do is restore each and every person (if only they would come to him...I mean her, for in this book the Father and the Holy Spirit are women).
Basically, the thought process starts that God loves. As a result, he wants everyone to be saved, because he cannot send people to hell. But, he cannot force them into a loving relationship (because love cannot force, of course), so he simply woos. And through all the evil that is outside of his control, he tries so badly to make good out of it. Though he cannot stop it, he tries to paint a beautiful picture with the "colors" this god has been dealt. In fact, at one point it mentions that this god was with the about-to-be-murdered girl in the car of the serial killer. (my immediate thought: if "God" was there and is loving, how come this "God" didn't step in and prevent this murder? That doesn't seem loving by the author's definition...but I digress).
So, the book basically defines "God" by what the author thinks love is. Whatever he thinks is love is what God is, and whatever he thinks is not love is what God isn't. As a result, he does not paint a picture of the jealous, wrathful, hating-on-sin God of the Word. He paints a picture of a weak god who works with the hand that creation deals him, a god who has no control over the events happening in our world, and a god merely feels bad about the sinful choices a "free" person makes. The result is a god who is a cheerleader and not in control of the "game"; a god who is a parole officer, not a judge; and a god who is offended by sin, but is never sinned against. This is a very low view of sin: sin is simply doing wrong that does not outrage God. It's this low view of sin and its impact on God that Paul works so hard to diffuse in the first three chapters of Romans. And, I will be so bold to say that a low view of sin is THE BIGGEST HINDRANCE for sinners in believing the gospel. Without coming face to face with our filthiness, how can we see our need for a Savior?
Many think that a God who reacts to our free choices of love is ideal. On the other hand, John Piper repeatedly says that the sovereignty of God is the supreme comfort and blessing of the Word. I, like Piper, take no comfort in a god who can be in the presence of a girl who is about to be murdered and is powerless to change this. I do take comfort in a God who is sovereign over all the suffering and evil in this world and directs all things for His glory and our good.
I'm mostly bothered by a god created by the human mind. Isaiah 55:8-11 are so precious to me: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts. For as the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." God is above whatever our minds can conjure up; hence we cannot form a "correct" God in our thoughts. Hence, God delivered the Word for this purpose: that it might transform our lowly thoughts about God and do so according to God's purpose.
We CANNOT create God in our minds. God can only be created from Scripture, whether we like the picture it paints or not. And yet we see this so much: people paint a god that makes sense to them (in fact, the author rebukes Mack in the book for painting an incorrect picture of God in his mind when this is THE AUTHOR'S PURPOSE in The Shack!). But here is one reason that God gave us Scripture: to be a first-hand account, to the lowly creature, of the royalty and magnificence of the Creator. Without this, it is mere speculation, and as I found in The Shack, the speculation can be frightening.
Furthermore, the author states that God the Father really never left Jesus' side at the cross, only that Jesus could not sense him (or her, if you go by the book). And it states that ALL human beings are God's children, and uses this to show that God could never put someone in hell. It would be too painful for God to do this, like a father having to choose which of his children to kill. Thus, the author uses this to disprove the biblical doctrine of election. The problem with this is that, to be biblically consistent, these "children" shouldn't be lovely beings; they should be vile creatures who hate their father, spit on him, love what he hates, speak evil of him, do evil to him, reject his love, and are utterly undeserving of anything good from him. It's a bit tougher to think that such "children" should go unpunished by a loving Father!
I could find more, but I'm going to stop now. I'll end with this: I told my Arminian pastor that if I had to logically reconcile what I see in the world with the fact that there is a God above it, I would theologically be Arminian. Free Will Theology is the logical conclusion of my human mind, and I never wanted to be Calvinistic. It's too confusing and tough to reconcile with my experience. However, when my boys Jared Hollick, Scott Welch, and Matty were pouring their lives and the Word into me Freshman year, and I saw what Scripture said, I had no choice but to renounce the logic in my mind for the reality of the mind of my Lord as revealed in the Word. My mind must conform to the Word, and the Word must never conform to my mind.
Thanks for reading. I feel better now.
9 comments:
Beautiful! Stop teaching math and go get a PhD in philosophy and go be a college professor. You are an apologetics beast.
That's my boy! I just read it and found nothing of value it in. It's just another fad that will fade because its spiritual junk food.
All of the staff women in our region are passing this book around and it's getting a fantastic response. How can they so misunderstand the false gospel that is taught in this book. My wife just got it and I pray she doesn't read it. Lies...Damn Satan!
Ok, I am writing in response to Nick. Brother, please understand that I mean no disrespect to you or the faithful workers of CCC. Still, it has to be said that Crusade is constantly endorsing books that are pure garbage. Crusade is constantly jumping on the pop-Christian bandwagon and riding it straight to heresy.
Can you tell this has been bottled for a little while:)
From Blue Like Jazz to everything by John Eldredge, Crusade directors and higher ups have displayed a complete lack of discernment when it comes to wholeheartedly endorsing books that contain only partial truths, which are diluted with error. I truly believe that Blue Like Jazz has contributed to the drinking epidemic that we find in CCC, which is often excused in the name of evangelism that never happens. I pray that God will give CCC leaders discernment because they carry a great heritage and an even greater gospel, but they are slipping into the emergent crowd without even knowing it. Don't even get me started on Velvet Elvis and CCC's love affair with that stuff.
I say this with no bad blood. God used crusade to grow me more than I can describe in words, but someone within the movement has got to start calling a spade a spade. Lets put away the "Soularium" tracks and return to the gospel and the sufficiency of scripture...now I'm all fired up...sorry.
I love you guys!
Kurtz,
Will you send me a copy of the book so I can have a look? Let me know if you have time and I'll give you my address through some other medium besides the internet. Later.
Sorry Cohster - borrowed it from my mom. And I'm happy that I didn't spend the money on it. Otherwise, it would be all yours to do with as you see fit.
I kinda do want to get you started on Velvet Elvis. It's sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read, though I was skeptical after reading its summary... I'll have to get back to you.
hmmm...I just read a review of Velvet Elvis. It sounds like I would not be able to make it through. I am intrigued by his new book concerning the church's inward spending in the context of poor people.
Co, brother! I both like and dislike what you've written here.
I agree on the frivolous endorsement of christian literature. I agree that it's a leadership issue, however I also think it's one of the natural tendencies of large organizations. (this however doesn't make it okay).
I wanted to know, when you said "drinking epidemic" that is within CCC, did you mean within students? and if you meant within the staff, where do you see this?
And with what you've said about the soularium here, I'd have to ask what your experience is with it? Who trained you to use it? Did you ever use it with Henderson? It's intended only to be a conversation starter that would eventually lead to someone sharing the gospel with scripture and all. I've personally seen great things come of it, and I've also trained many students to use it in the same way.
Also, and I totally understand how you were using the term "emergent" to describe the direction this could go. However, I'd just issue a bit of caution on using that word cause there is a great deal of difference between CCC and the heretical organizations of Rob Bell, and the like.
I understand the getting fired up, and perhaps, if your going to rant anywhere this is the place to do it because of the company we are in, but please understand that we don't view everything we do to be totally perfect. However, no organization or church is all good or all bad, it's a mix of both.
This is a fun discussion, and it's good for me to have the outsiders perspective. Also here no bad blood, and with full knowledge that we aren't a perfect group and could sorely use the accountability.
With love and lots of Jesus
Post a Comment