Listening to our culture

Given all that I have written about it so far the biggest question is: Why has The Shack been so popular among Christians?

If the book has so many things that concern me why are so many Christians reading it and raving about it? I think it shows fundamentally that we desire to have a close, intimate personal relationship with God. We would love to be able to engage with God as Mack does. I think many people will be prepared to put up with the errors they see in the book because the picture of God relating to and with Mack is so heartwarming.

I wonder if this has something to say to us about the formalism of church. I don't want to join in the church bashing the book does - the Bible has a high view of church, it is Christ's bride, it is God's means of declaring his wisdom to the powers and authorities, it is glorious and it will be built by Christ. And yet so many people in churches seem to be saying that The Shack is giving them something new.

It makes me wonder if in stressing the need for good Bible teaching we have missed something, if in all our training Bible teachers with techniques of exposition and composition and delivery if we have taken something out of preaching God's word. Do I love God? As I look at a passage what does it teach me that I can simply glorify and marvel at God for? What new facet of God's character and actions does it reveal to me that should cause me to love him more and naturally to want to praise him for? Is much of our preaching too dry?

I am not arguing for the dumbing down of preaching but I am asking the question about our methodology. The Bible is God's inspired word to make me love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. Does the teaching leave me gasping for relationship with God, breathless at the wonder of what God gifts me in Christ that I can everyday and for eternity call God 'Dad'?

In our concern to teach theologically have we missed out peoples hearts and emotions? As I stand up to preach is it with concerns about my structure or is it about making the God I know personally known to others as he has revealed himself?

I have heard people say that the Bible is hard to understand, sometimes I think it is because we make it hard to understand. When you read books that tell you you should be spending 12 hours a week preparing your talk, 6 hours simply on understanding the text what does that say to us about the Bible. To the person in the pew that says the Bible is too complex - it makes it nearly as hard to understand as when it was written in Latin. I am not saying we should not labour to understand the Bible, we should, as those who preach we must. But I am saying we should not lay that burden on people, the Bible is a book to be read that reveals God to us, it is God's revelation - you do not need 4 technical commentaries and a degree in Greek, Hebrew, systematic and Biblical Theology, as well as Hermeneutics in order to understand it. Certainly never does Paul recommend that to the church, in fact in his letter to the Colossians he continually calls them to one thing to know Christ.

I think part of the attraction of The Shack is that it makes God accessible and people have not found him in the Bible in part I think because they think it is a hard book to read. We need to counter act that. We need to be showing people how they can know the real God who reveals himself to us not in a novel but in his word gifted to us. We need to be calling people to know God through his word, to experience God living in and through them by the power of his Spirit.

"I want to know Christ," Paul wrote "to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead." It is a great longing to want to know God.

The Shack some final thoughts

I finished reading The Shack last night, I'm going to try to give my thoughts on the book and why I think that way.

This book has generated a lot of heat (as ever) in Christian circles, by some it has been welcomed as having "the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his." Whilst others have labelled it heresy. So what are we to make of it.

I want to begin by giving a word of caution. This book is a work of fiction, it is a made up story and we need to read it as such. However, it is also a fictional story which is about things which we hold dear; the god head, atonement, Jesus Christ and salvation. As a story it engages us and weaves a tale in which we find ourselves eager to know more, yet at the same time it also challenges us and our beliefs, not just our assumptions. It is a book to be read with discernment because it does seek to teach us about God even if it does so through a fictional story.

The book does challenge our assumptions about God, some will never get past God the Father being portrayed as an African American Woman - indeed some have said this is akin to goddess worship - but as you read the book it is clear that God the Father is not a woman, he remains 'Papa' throughout and finally appears as a man at the end. It is a challenge to Mack's assumptions and ours of God as an elderly white bearded man. Similarly with the character Sarayu (wind) the Holy Spirit. Part of me thinks this was unnecessary but as a literary device it works - theological it is questionable.

The biggest challenge in the book is in the way you see the godhead relating - laughing, having fun, being moved, loving one another, knowing each other. It is an interesting thought which then impinges on how Mack is to relate to the godhead. Mack is anti-established church (a common emerging church trend) and very anti-religion, and God is the same the stress instead from the godhead is on relationship, though Jesus description of being in love with a woman - his people - is biblical and a good corrective. Such things we would do well to search the Bible for and rediscover ourselves, though we must ensure that we establish biblical principles behind relationship and a biblical view of church.

However, in the book holiness and awe are not sufficiently dealt with. Yes, Young contends that Jesus gives himself so that we can enter relationship with God and we want to live every day in the light of that truth, however there is also the issue of our response to a holy God which is not fully unpacked. In fact there seems to be little awe in the book which does not reflect the biblical emphases of both New and Old Testaments.

The Shack also seems to downplay the significance of the Bible whilst exalting the place of experience, yet the Bible is God's word given to us so that we might know him and where we stand in relation to him. Such a heavy emphasis on experience is dangerous, though many of us would do well to think biblically through the challenge to be less independent and listen more to what God says to us.

I also have one or two questions about the way the gospel is presented in the book. Young makes it very clear that it is only in Jesus Christ we can be reconciled to God by faith. He makes it clear that all religions are not the same, but that people from all backgrounds need to be saved by faith in Christ and I want to say Amen to that. However his view of sin is not biblical; describing sin as punishment enough in itself and questioning therefore whether God needs to punish it. Teachings which go against the Bibles teaching about a holy God and sin.

The biggest area of debate has been surrounding the portrayal of the Trinity, too much of what is in the book is speculation and blue sky thinking. The book does challenge us about our preconceptions of God, that we just make him in our image with our limitations and it challenges us to understand that God is inherently good. However there are large parts of the book which go against what the Bible teaches: Young teaches that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity and that all hierarchy is wrong, this is clearly not biblical.

He also teaches that God the Father ('Papa') is fully human in Jesus Christ incarnate, even going so far as to have the Father suffering the wounds in his hands and feet and saying that at no point did God leave or forsake Jesus even on the cross. He also makes other statements and suggestions about the Trinity which have no scriptural support and therefore are just conjecture. The Trinity is complex and Young does have God saying that man cannot understand it, but overall the books teaching on it leaves me concerned. If I want to know God and understand and be amazed at the nature of God and the godhead the Bible has to be the book that amazes, teaches me and draws me to my knees to praise so great a God.

However the book does grapple with the idea of God and suffering, it teaches that we have rejected God's rule and turned to independence and that we dragged the world with us. It challenges Mack's putting of God in the dock for what happened to his daughter, something which we so often do too.

So what to say in summary? This is not a brilliant piece of literature as writing goes, though it is a very emotive and engaging story, it will challenge our thinking and make us long to know God. But the big issue is will it make me long to know the God of the Bible? I my opinion this book is no Pilgrim's Progress. There are just too many areas of questionable theology, too much extra-biblical surmising. It is not a book I would recommend Christians to read to deepen their faith unless they were to exercise considerable discernment and read it with their bible open next to them or in a discussion group, though it has its uses when used like that - challenging our preconceptions and forcing us to check biblically our view of God, his word and salvation.

However, I do think The Shack has its uses: It shows us that there is a spiritual hunger in the world by the very fact that it has been in the best seller lists - there are those in our workplaces, at the school gates, in our neighbourhoods who will have read the book and been challenged about their view of God. We need to be ready to answer their questions about what God is like, about suffering, about Jesus and what he has done for us, about redemption and salvation not in terms of The Shack but in terms of the Bible - God's word.

The Shack II

The book continues to challenge my assumptions about God and the Trinity. It does so by showing a loving familial relationship between the godhead with laughter and fun and love. It does not do so in a way that is biblical but by showing something so different from how we think about God. The difficulty is that this makes it hard to weigh biblically, though I think the challenge is needed, the way we think about the trinity often lacks warmth and misses that idea of relationship.

It also challenges us on our independence from God, the fact that we often hold things back from God. That actually God is good and is loving and we should live dependent on him.

But there continue to be things that are a concern. Why does the Father have nail marks in hand and feet? The emphasis that the Father suffered at the cross too, the challenge as to what the cry "My God, my God who have you forsaken me." Young maintains that we misunderstand it and that God never left Jesus.

It is a book that challenges us and our perceptions but not by using the Bible but by painting a fictional story. I find myself so far torn about the book - I can see friends of mine reading it and longing for a relationship with God, but there are things here that worry me about the God they would long for relationship with.

The Shack

'The Shack' is a novel written by William P Young, it is a fictional story which has achieved phenomenal popularity. It is being hailed as our generations Pilgrims Progress. With that in mind I bought it at the weekend and began reading it, as I continue to do so I'm going to post some thoughts here and then when finished examine it more thoroughly.

The first point that has to be made is that this is a fictional story but which, through that medium, teaches theology. Mack, the main character, is invited to The Shack of the title in a note signed by Papa - the families private name for God. The Shack is significant because it is where the bloodstained clothing of his youngest daughter Missy was found four years previously after her abduction during a family holiday though her body was never found.

We first meet Mack as he lives with 'the great sadness' that is the result of that loss. Having received the note Mack goes to the shack where he meets with the Godhead and what follows is largely dialogue between the Godhead and Mack.

The nature of the book makes it hard for us to be discerning as we examine it as the Bible exhorts us to do with everything. It is emotionally very touching, as a dad I found myself empathising with Mack and his grief, the great sadness that marked everything after the loss of his child. I found myself aware of my idolatry of my children, that actually they are the one thing I am not sure how I would live without. It made me turn to God and pray thanking him for his blessing but also praying that he would help me not to make my children idols.

There are a number of issues that the book has covered already about which I am uneasy however; as Mack meets the Godhead he meets God as a matronly African American woman - why is the big question, though the story maintains it is to challenge our preconceptions about God. The Holy Spirit is an Asian woman and Jesus is a young Jewish male. I was and am uneasy about such personifications of the Godhead.

The book does challenge us about our preconceptions of God, that we just make him our image with our limitations and it challenges us to understand that God is inherently good. However there are large parts of the book so far which seem to go against what the Bible teaches:

Young teaches there is no hierarchy in the Trinity and that all hierarchy is wrong. He also teaches that God is fully human in Jesus Christ incarnate. He also makes other statements and suggestions about the Trinity which have no scriptural support and therefore are just conjecture. The Trinity is complex and Young does have God saying that man cannot understand it, but overall the books teaching on it leaves me concerned.

More thoughts as I read on.