My posts on The Shack are by far the most visited entries on my blog. Not only are they the most visited, but they also receive the most comments. I’m sure that I’m not the only Christian blogger who has posted against The Shack who has had this experience. As of right now, I don’t plan to write specifically on The Shack anymore, except for when its pops up every now and then as something pertaining to whatever else I’m writing at that time. I think that I’ve covered it sufficiently within the world of blogdom. A response to The Shack as a whole deserves a much larger treatment in book form.

I’ve noticed that Roger Olson has put out a book in defense of The Shack called Finding God in The Shack: Seeking Truth in a Story of Evil and Redemption. For those in the theological community, hearing Olson’s name attached to a defense of The Shack comes as no surprise. Olson is a professor at Baylor University and is what I’d call a liberal Christian; in addition, with respect to an issue that I never brought up in my critiques of The Shack, namely, that of God’s sovereignty and providence (which is something definitely contested in Young’s story/theology), Olson also fits the mold for writing this book insofar as he has authored several books defending Arminian theology. Perhaps at some point I’ll review this book and post on it as well. As for now, I’m taking a break.

I wanted to collect all of my posts on this book together into one post much like how I did my “Sojourner” series. In these posts you’ll find numerous different approaches to evaluating the book, including my official three-part systematic response, “The Shack Revisited“. Also, you should check out the comments on these posts where you’ll find great discussions I had with others on multiple levels concerning their dissatisfaction with my position. I’m sure there’s more engagement to come on these posts as people surf the blogs looking for a “Shack-hater” to rebuke. But that’s why I’ve written these warnings and caveats. I want to contend for the integrity of the gospel and to speak the truth in love. Likewise, as I’ve expressed before, I’ve made Francis Schaeffer’s motto my own as well. I have no reservations about giving honest answers to honest questions.

• Dr. Mohler on The Shack
• More Reflections on The Shack
• The Shack Revisited (Part I)
• The Shack Revisited (Part II)
• The Shack Revisited (Part III)

Currently, I’m reading through a book on the history of Christianity and the Reformation called The Division of Christendom by Hans J. Hillerbrand. Well, actually, I’ve pretty much finished it, but I’m going back through it since I’ll be submitting a review of it for the SWBTS journal. Near the end of this massive volume, Hillerbrand discusses some of his conclusions and some of his observed consequences of the Reformation. Although these types of reflective moments are few and far between in his retelling of the religious events of the 16th century, he takes time at the end of his “Conclusions” to compare one particular aspect of the 16th century with the 21st century.

According to Hillerbrand, although one result of the Reformation was a regained respect for the common man, both in society and religion, for the most part, the everyday man remained theologically dispassionate. This is not to say that the normal citizen wasn’t engaged in the monumental events of the sixteenth century; instead, the point that Hillerbrand is making is that the common man longed to be a part of a movement, but didn’t want to get involved with the heavy-lifting when it came to the intellect.

In looking at the 21st century, Hillerbrand remarks that not much has changed. As a test case, he reflects upon the Joint Declaration on Justification, which was signed in 1999, marking a theological compromise between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Prompting Christian Unity. Hillerbrand notes that when this radical statement was made public, it received almost unanimous disapproval from the foremost German theologians and historians. Ultimately, somewhere around 250 of them (approximately 98% of all German Lutheran theologians), agreed to sign a letter stating their rejection of the proposed, unified Lutheran-Catholic position on the doctrine of justification.

From this information, Hillerbrand observes, “In other words, the experts dissented (404).” The Lutheran synods, full of everyday laymen, had no problem in ratifying a historic document that seemingly was full of good intentions inasmuch as it was an attempt at bringing about healing from wounds inflicted in the 16th century between these two groups; however, “the common man” “showed no discernible interest either in the joint declaration or, for that matter, in dissenting theologians (404).” Again, Hillerbrand remarks, “[I]t is surely safe to say that even today most church members, whatever their denomination, have little interest and even less competence in any serious engagement in current theological feuds and disagreements (404).”

After reading this passage, I couldn’t help but nod along as I processed his conclusions. I know there is always a danger in giving one big broad generalization, and I’m not delusional to think that no “common man” exists who is theologically-interested and competent. Nevertheless, it appears that the majority of the everyday man is not so inclined. On a popular level, I can think of two recent issues that have arisen which have exposed the state of Christianity today in the world outside of the seminaries and institutions: The DaVinci Code and The Shack.

Here we have two fiction books, each contributing in its own unique way to unveiling the Christian state of mind. For instance, on the one hand, The DaVinci Code, which promoted itself as historical fact, turned the layman’s world upside down as he found himself engulfed in a story which sought to unmask the supposed lies of traditional Christianity by purporting that Jesus wasn’t God, that he married Mary Magdalene, and that the Bible couldn’t be trusted. I remember when the book was selling like hotcakes and the controversy was at its peak, having “the common man” come up to me with a look of utter distraught and desperation in light of the claims that Dan Brown had made, begging for me to give him something to hold on to as he felt like his faith was like oil steadily slipping through the cracks of his fingers.

On the other hand, on a more recent note, William P. Young’s The Shack, whether consciously or sub-consciously, undermines the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity, and it does not require a seminary-trained eye to catch the blatant heretical claims plastered across its pages. But it never fails, that almost one or twice every few weeks, I stumble upon a believer who is reading it or has read it, and is shocked to find out that I’m not as in love with it as they are. Needless to say, I remain dumbfounded when as I attempt to explain why they shouldn’t fall head-over-heels in love with Young’s theological liberty in his fictitious story, they respond with something to the effect: “Ya know, I never even picked up on that,” or “Wow, that never crossed my mind.”

The problem, at least in my view, and with reference to what Hillerbrand is trying to point out in his illustration from the Lutheran-Catholic treaty on justification, is that the major theological controversies of the day are not the complex, technical mumbo-jumbo that only people with PhDs can understand. Rather, these issues are dealing with the most basic fundamentals of the gospel, and “the common man,” in large part, is both unable to articulate the rudimentary principles of the Christian faith and to recognize when deception and false doctrine call themselves truth.

Must “the experts” always be the only ones, or perhaps even the first, to sound the gong when false prophets and teachers are on the rise? As someone who isn’t necessarily an “expert,” but who is, although, working on his third theological degree, I can say that it would be encouraging to see more of the everyday man in the body of Christ more alert and armed, equipped and watchful, so that we might all together “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saint (Jude 3b).” When I chime in on my blog warning Christians everywhere to beware the latest fad that is lurking around as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the standard response is, “Oh, here is another one of the talking-heads, who has to have everything just right.” Or, I’m written off as a compulsive “Mr. Know-it-all.” This experience was shared by the Apostle Paul even in the 1st century. He tells the Galatians (exactly the way I feel at times), “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth (Gal 4:16)?

Alas, it shouldn’t be that way, and it wouldn’t if more within the Christian community were willing as well as able to stand up and to defend the integrity of the gospel, both in its simplicity and its complexity besides those who pay tuition for formal training. My quarrel isn’t that the layman should be just as theologically-educated and keen as the person who serves as a “theologian” in terms of his profession or career. But, as I stated above, the problem is that it seems that “the common man” is becoming more and more unfamiliar and uninterested with the fundamentals of Christian truth, not the scholarly jargon and higher-academic discussions, to the point that the “voices crying in the wilderness” are for the most part, “the experts,” while the everyday man passively and actively embraces the world’s twisted and deceptive spin on the gospel of God.

As I reflect on these concerns, I would like to leave with a few questions:

1. Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why?
2. If so, why do you think that this is the case both in the 16th century and the 21st century on a majority level?
3. What is the place of the layman in this regard, and what is the expectation of Scripture on his or her aptitude towards theological knowledge and competence?
4. How can we fix it? What are some steps we can take to better equip “the common man” with the tools necessary to be bold and efficient, defenders of the faith?

 This will be my final post in my series titled, “The Shack Revisited” (Part I and Part II). The name has a double-meaning. First, I have “revisited” The Shack in my analysis having now read the book in full as opposed to my previous warnings against it submitted prior to my reading it. Second, the title is a short summary of the story of the book insofar as Mack, the main character, “revisits” the shack where his daughter was murdered, but instead of finding the killer, he encounters the Trinity. From this point on out, during his experience with the Godhead, in essence, Mack is continually “revisiting” many different things such as the memories of that fateful day when his daughter, Missy, came up missing, his love for his other surviving children, his admiration for his wife, and the soundness (or lack thereof) of his “pre-conceived” notions about religion and theology.

This has been a fruitful study, and it has been a blessing to be able to inform people who are close to me such as family and friends, as well as those whom I’ve never met about the dangers of this best-selling “Christian” fiction book. With these final caveats, I hope that you will truly investigate this work through the lens of Scripture and with a heart loyal to God above all else. Although I have hit many topics in these posts, there are several other theological reasons why I find Young’s story poisonous with regard to the affect it could potentially have on people with respect to their view of Christianity, daily Christian spirituality, and ultimately, God; and therefore, I find it completely unenjoyable literature.

5) Christology: The Humanity of Jesus Christ and His Limitedness – One aspect of Young’s explication of the Trinity is his emphasis on God’s humanity. Yes, God’s humanity, not just Jesus’. But, as I have argued earlier, this should be a major point of contention for orthodox Christians regarding the fact that only God the Son became human, despite anthropomorhic language used in the Bible with reference to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Near the beginning of Mack’s weekend with the Godhead, Papa breaks off from “her” description of the Trinity as being human and limited and focuses the subject on Jesus’ humanity. I admit that Young agrees that Jesus is fully God, but the manner in which he presents Jesus as fully human seems to undermine Jesus’ deity. In other words, his explanation of Jesus’ humanity is problematic to the point that it makes no room for his divine identity to thrive. Young writes, through the words of Papa, that “Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything (99-100).” What?! Not only do I believe that this is an extreme overstatement, but theologically, it is impossible to sustain in light of Jesus as God in the flesh. Again, Papa gives an illustration on how Jesus healed the blind: “He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone (emphasis mine; 100).” Part of Young’s problem at this point most likely is due to an erroneous interpretation of the relationship between the Father and the Son in John’s Gospel. I have no argument with the fact that God the Father manifested his words, will, and works through God the Son, however, Jesus was also simultaneously fully God, and most certainly did have power within himself to do the works that only God can do.

Typically, what Young is posing is referred to as the Kenosis Theory which argues that Christ literally gave up some of his divine attributes in the Incarnation. The Kenosis Theory is an inaccurate interpretation of Philippians 2:5-7, and it carries little weight; moreover, it is rejected by evangelical, orthodoxy. Although Jesus as the Word made flesh may have been limited in some respects, he never ceased being fully God and being fully equipped with all of his divine attributes. When Papa says that Jesus “had no power within himself to heal anyone,” she clearly is not talking about the same Jesus who demonstrated his deity by using his omnipotence over creation to calm the storm at sea with the disciples in Matthew 8. Or, what about when the NT attests to Jesus’ omniscience in instances such as John 21:17 where Peter proclaims, “Lord, you know everything.”  With regard to miracles, Jesus as God clearly performs his own works that manifest his glory (cf. Jn 2:11). Once again, when you accept Young’s version of the person of Jesus Christ, though he seems like a perfect fit, the Jewish carpenter in The Shack who says he’ll answer to Jesse is no God at all, but rather is a pale, man-centered portrayal of the risen and triumphant Lord and King, Son of God and Son of man.

Just as a note of warning, as you read The Shack, pay attention to other places where Young tries to show how the entire Godhead as limited in his knowledge, forgetting, and in other ways, not just with respect to Christology. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Young’s depiction of God is more human than anything else.

Other areas of theological concern that I’m not going to delve into which you should be on the lookout for while reading The Shack are the nature of special revelation, inclusivism/pluralism, the scars on the wrists of Papa’s hands, heaven, theodicy (God and evil), and the providence and sovereignty of God. In addition, Chapter 15, “A Festival of Friends” was just plain weird, and I’m extremely suspicious of Judas, the family cat.

6) God Didn’t Write The Shack – And finally, I’d like to bring up one final issue. Please bear in mind that in The Shack, although God is one of the main characters, it is not him really doing the talking. Not to over do it, but in the story, essentially Young is God. Yes, he uses the God of the Bible as the God of his novel, nevertheless, Young is the man behind the pen or the fingers typing away at the keyboard, moving the mouths of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. The explanation of the Trinity and other doctrines found in The Shack is not special revelation as comparable to what we have in Scripture. What we have in The Shackis no different than what exists in non-fiction Christian books that seek to expound upon God and theology. The only difference is that he has decided to use the medium of a fictional narrative to communicate his message and beliefs. Either way, it is Young’s theology we get, not God’s per se. It would be very beneficial to keep this mind as you listen to “God” explain himself in this story.

If your vision of God is lacking, or if you have questions about what your relationship with the Trinity is supposed to look like, or you are wondering how you recover from tragedy, I have a single admonition: Go to the Bible and read the words that God did write, and pray that the Holy Spirit will give you eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to believe what God has spoken concerning himself and how he works in his creation. Most of all, I pray that you find there a rich and glorious gospel where Jesus Christ becomes your most treasured possession.

In Part I, I only covered two of my points of contention with The Shack, and I had planned on hitting about 15 different issues. So in this post, I’m going to try and cover as many of them as possible, as briefly as possible. Please let me state once again just for clarification’s sake: I’m not attacking the story, the literary style, fiction, or Christian fiction. I’m a huge fan of fiction in general and am in full support of Christianity and the arts, so please do not lash out against my displeasure with The Shack by writing me off as narrow-sighted or opposed to Christian involvement in the culture. If you disagree with my concerns, then please interact with me on the theological points I list because these are where my dissatisfaction with The Shack lie, though as a novel in general, Young’s story and style are average and nothing to get too excited about.

3) The Gender Issue with Young’s Trinity – For those of you unfamiliar with the book, here is what I’m referencing in Young’s picture of the Trinity: God the Father – Known as “Papa” and is an African-American woman, who seems to have a southern backstory; God the Son – Known as Jesus, but says he would answer to Yeshua, Joshua, or even Jesse (86-87); he appears as Jewish carpenter; God the Holy Spirit – Known as “Sarayu” and is an Asian woman. Doing the math, whereas orthodox Christianity has always upheld all three persons of the Trinity as male, Young has taken two of them and made them female, and oddly enough, has still given the first person of the Trinity a “fatherly” name, Papa. So should evangelical Christians have a problem with the literary and theological liberty that Young has taken? Absolutely. Why? Because God has not revealed himself as female. Scripture, as God’s Word, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, always refers to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit with masculine, singular pronouns (i.e. he, him, his). When members of the Trinity are portrayed as females, Young is contradicting how God has described himself in his very own revealed Word, and ultimately, undermines the authority of Scripture. There is a difference between acknowledging that God has used feminine metaphors and illustrations in the Bible to describe how he acts towards creation and his people than changing the manifest revelation of God’s divine identity. Altering God’s revelation of himself is not permissible, and when it occurs, the alternative result is not God, but instead a fabrication. In the case of Young’s version of the Trinity, it seems that only God’s humanity is perceived to be important, not his masculinity. This, however, is contrary to Scripture and God’s divine identity. Young tries to sidestep this critique with this troublesome quote, “Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning (93).” Young is mistaken, though, to think that God as Father is only a metaphor. There is a grave difference in Scripture between when God talks metaphorically about “giving birth” to his people as opposed to when he reveals himself as the Father. The former is a metaphor, the latter is metaphysical. God’s masculinity is in the realm of his ontology, not a literary device. We would not call God’s Fatherhood a metaphor no more than we would call Jesus’ Sonship a metaphor. If God the Father is able to be female, then why can’t Jesus be his daughter? This type of theology is extremely dangerous, and bears immense implications for the whole of the fundamentals of Christianity.

4) The Incarnation – Another problem I have with Young’s depiction of the Trinity is that all three persons of the Godhead appear as humans. For me, this is unacceptable insofar as only the Second person of the Trinity, God the Son, is God made flesh. The Bible also clearly states that God is spirit (Jn 4:24), and the disciple John writes in John 1:18 that, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he [Jesus] has made him known.” Jesus, as the Incarnate Son of God, reveals the Father to the world. Likewise, the Holy Spirit does not appear as a human in Scripture, and instead, in the new covenant, is meant to indwell believers and point people to the Word made flesh in Jesus Christ. So when Young allows his narrative explanation of the Trinity to cause each member to become human, he has betrayed the purpose of the Incarnation and violated the divine identities of both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. There is a reason that only God the Son became both fully human and fully divine, and Young seems to think that this major theological category is up for grabs. An example of just how off-base Young is theologically can be observed in this passage (Sarayu is speaking): “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood (99).” The fact that so many Christians can read over selections like these in this book and find no problem with them is quite disturbing. Contrary to Sarayu, all three members of the Trinity are not human and are not flesh and blood. Only Jesus Christ is Immanuel, the Incarnate God, come in the flesh.

Once again, as I said before, when the God of the Bible is tampered with according to his revealed identity, the end result is not God (or as I could envision Francis Schaeffer putting it, “non-God”), but a fabrication, an imaginary god, or should I say, a fictional character.

I’m now set to do a Part III since each of these points are so huge that it takes a good solid paragraph or two just to introduce them, interact with the book, and give some implications. One more post should allow me to wrap things up since I’ve decided not to submit everything I’ve found questionable with the theology of The Shack. Thank you for bearing with me.

They say that controversy is always good publicity, and at least with regard to my posts in opposition to The Shack, I can testify that this proverb has proven true. Last year I submitted two blog posts in response to “the book of the hour,” and ever since, they have caused my blog to receive more attention than any of my other entries by leaps and bounds. Almost every day, the first of the two, “Dr. Mohler and The Shack,” holds the top spot on my “Top Posts” widget (Click here to view the second post). The only time it seems to be dethroned is when I publish something new, but it only takes a matter of days, or perhaps hours, for it to regain its place of dominance.

The “Comments” on both of these posts are just as prominent. Every now and then someone will evidently stumble upon my post, get mad, and leave a vehement response to which I will try and reply as generously as possible, attempting to speak the truth in love. Usually, most of the bitterness towards my warnings against embracing The Shack is a result of people disregarding my arguments for the fact that I hadn’t read the book. This occurs even though I state plainly in both posts that I intend in no way to judge the book per se, since I had not read it, but instead my purpose was to interact with ideas within the Christian community that are being raised by readers of The Shack, both from those who approve and disapprove. Nonetheless, it seems to be a vain expectation to assume that people will actually read your words closely and respect what you have written along with your intentions. If people can’t even read my blog posts and come to terms with all that I have written, then how can I take comfort in them reading The Shack carefully with discerning eyes?

Since I continue to engage with people over this extremely popular fiction work, I resolved to read it for myself over the Christmas break. Although this may satisfy my critics, my dissatisfaction with The Shack’s theology and how evangelical Christians have wholeheartedly embraced this book has only been heightened and now given a fuller picture. Having finished the book, I only owe it to my readers to give one final assessment of Young’s allegorical attempt at explaining theology proper. I will be as brief and gracious as possible, and will try to be as sensitive to the actual “story” as I can since the murder of the main character’s (Mack) daughter, Missy, is not a trifling matter.

In brief, here’s a list of real concerns that I have that should be not be overlooked behind the fiction.

1) The Overt Anti-Intellectualism – From beginning to end, Young seems bent on making sure the reader has as little regard for theological training and education as possible. Over and over again, Mack either thinks or says in response to his “re-education” at the shack that everything he’d been taught at seminary about God, spirituality, and church was in vain. Towards the end of the story, Sarayu (the Asian-female manifestation of The Holy Spirit) says, “And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty (203).” At times I felt as if I was reading a novel by an Emergent church writer since uncertainity and mystery were continually elevated to an exalted place, even by Young’s allegorical God, over and against acheiving objective truth and certain knowledge about theological matters. Again, as Sarayu attempts to turn Mack’s “religious-system” upside down, she states, “There are a lot of smart people who are able to say a lot of right things from their brain because they have been told what the right answers are, but they don’t know me at all.” Mack responded, “I understand what you’re saying. I did that for years after seminary (198).” These type of exchanges, especially with respect to “seminary” and its collective worth, become wearisome, and for a book that promotes relationship over content, by the final page, Young comes across as too preachy.

2) Therapeutic Salvation – The one gong that resounds loud and clear, and redundantly I might add, is Young’s take on the nature of salvation. Born out of the story’s conflict, Mack’s path to redemption travels across the plains of desperation and the mountains of suffering, rather than flowing through the rivers of his repentance of sin. Two things are obvious in regard to the portrayal of salvation in this allegorical treatise. First, there appears to be a complete absence of the seriousness of sin and disobedience and its need to be removed before one may partake in the new life found in Christ. While trying to figure out Papa, Mack sarcastically attacks the notion of God being a God of wrath in rebuttal to “her” statement that “I love the ones I am angry with just as much as those I’m not (119).” In reply, Papa explains, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it (120).” Later, when being interrogated by Sophia (Lady Wisdom), in reply to Mack’s confession of his messed up worldview, she remarks, “You are a glorious, destructive mess, Mackenzie, but you are not here to repent, at least not in the way that you understand Mackenzie, you are not here to be judged (158).” Everytime the traditional notion of sin tries to pop its head up, Papa, Jesus, Sarayu, and here, Sophia, thwart all of Mack’s “pre-conceived” notions about theology and reveal his ill-informed “religious-system.” The fact that Mack is angry at God, almost in a hateful manner, is chuckled away by Young’s depiction of the Trinity. Throughout the entire dialogue, which is by far the bulk of the book, Mack never seems to be in the wrong in terms of his thoughts and actions. Everything he does and says is justified, and oddly enough, God is the one who is doing the justifying. Along with Mack, I ,too, was shocked in several places to see the seriousness of sin unmasked as a “sin” of organized-religion and theological institutions. In the chapter “A Morning of Sorrows,” Papa helps to shed more light onto Young’s therapeutic view of salvation when he says, “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship (225).” In other words, according to Young’s understanding of the atonement, man is only out of relationship with God simply because he chooses to be, not because he is a sinner, condemned and unclean. This statement also contributes to another issue I have with Young’s soteriology with respect to traces of inclusivism and pluralism in his story, but I’ll get to that later. Since God sees humanity’s sin as a trifling matter, it is no wonder that the essence of the Christian life becomes something akin to moralism and fluff. This leads me to my second quarrel with Young’s therapeutic presentation of man’s redemption.

Near the beginning of his encounter with God, Mack is told by Papa that this “weekend is about relationship and love (102).” In my opinion, there could be no better way of defining what Young is conveying in this story. He is pleading with people, through the “mouth of God,” to scrap the marginal stuff and have a real, living relationship with God. The only problem is that all of the marginal stuff appears to be all of the theological content that tells us not only how to have a right relationship with God, but even more so, the ability to truly know who God is. Apparently, God ,too, is in favor of relationship at the expense of being worshipped in truth. Along the way, Young comes up with some weird conception of the Christian life that seems to say that the reason that God has redeemed humanity is so that he can experience life through man’s eyes. In one instance, Jesus states, “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to  do my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me (146).” And in another place, this idea comes across even more strongly when Jesus says again, “We’re meant to experience this life, your life, together, in a dialogue, sharing the journey. You get to share in our wisdom and learn to love with our love, and we get . . . to hear you grumble and gripe and compain, and . . . (175).” But what Young means by “relationship and love” is so vague, even from the lips of his rendition of God, that theology is left no place to fill the empty void with substantive content and direction, but instead, is seen as something that only straps chains on the freedom that God wants to have in relationship with his creatures. There’s no talk of holiness or what it means to be godly. There’s no discussions on how to fight the flesh and resist temptations to sin. In fact, in one section, Papa goes to great lengths to assure Mack that he has never placed one single expectation on humanity, and that he has never been disappointed in us for anything. “She” even goes so far as to say that “That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures (205).” After all this lovey-dovey talk about relationship from God, I was waiting for the Trinity to set a campfire behind the shack, join hands with Mack, and sing Kum-bay-ya. Believe me, it would not be out of place in this cliché and superficial presentation of the community a Christian is supposed to find with the Godhead. Young tries to bring his message home one final time through the closing words of his friend Willie, who, speaking on behalf of Mack’s wishes, exclaims, “. . . he’s hoping for a new revolution, one of love and kindness (248).”

So what do I mean by “therapeutic”? Therapeutic salvation is defined as man’s redemption consisting of nothing more than psychological healing. There’s no real spiritual “old man” to cast off; instead, you are fine just the way you are, and God comes along, pats you on the back, and boosts your self-esteem. In Mack’s case, his “conversion” experience is his psychological healing from losing his daughter Missy. However, this is a false notion of salvation, and it does a terrible injustice to the penalty and sacrifice that Christ made on the cross for the sins of his people, bearing in his body the real wrath of a just God. Not that God doesn’t heal people’s psychological wounds. He most certainly does, but this is not the essence of salvation nor is it a full picture of the Christian life, namely, the one that God expects of his people as revealed in the Scriptures. During Mack’s redemption, there never comes a moment where he is broken over his sin, and falls prostrate before the Holy God, beating on his chest, and crying, “Have mercy on me a sinner!” Instead, all of his mistakes are merely misunderstandings and supposedly bad theology as a result of a “boring-church” and a bunch of talking-heads at seminary.

Please BEWARE and do not be DECEIVED!

Wow, I only got to two of my points and I have almost 15. Obviously I will have to add another post and get to as many of them as I can.

In recent New Testament scholarship the Gospel of John has received special attention due to its part to play in supporting the historical reliability of not only the Gospel witnesses, but also the entire biblical-canonical testimony. Two works, both by the same author, have become standards and pillars in the fight for the historical validity of the personal accounts of the life of Jesus Christ in the NT. They are:

• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony ~ Richard Bauckham
• The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John ~ Richard Bauckham

Often, apologetic discussions against attacks of the Bible respond with text critical answers such as manuscript evidence and extra-biblical testimonies to the canon. Although these are valid arguments and carry incredible weight and should not be ignored, it seems to me that the fact that the Gospels were the fruit of historical accounts from eyewitnesses to Jesus and his ministry has not been emphasized as much as needed in the past. Now that I’m more familiar with this position, especially with respect to John’s Gospel, to me the eyewitness outlook on the Gospels could possibly be the most powerful.

Take for instance our own court system. Lawyers bring in evidence, exhibit A, and a plethora of rhetorical devices to argue their cases, but if someone cannot supply a witness in support of or against the accused party, then the case loses its force. The argument that is devoid of eyewitnesses works off of secondary or impersonal elements.

I think, though, that we can find an even deeper level of eyewitness account within the Gospels in the testimony of Jesus himself. In John 8:38 he tells the Jews, “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” The two words that are traditionally tagged to the discussion of eyewitness testimony (i.e. “seen” and “heard“) are juxtaposed in Jesus’ distinction between his identity and the Jews’. Note the interesting parallels in this verse:

• Jesus » Speak → Seen
• Jews » Do → Heard

When called into question, Jesus contrasts the nature of his testimony and the Jews’ actions. This entire passage is steeped in “court” language, especially regarding the Law’s requirement for a valid witness. Issues of judging, bearing witness, evidence, and even the pursuit of truth dominate this debate. So it is of great importance to see that the exchange transitions to a more serious and personal tone on 8:38. This verse serves as a summary statement for the content of both parties’ accusations, and leads into a darker setting as Jesus reveals that the “father” of those accusing him is the devil.

Resisting the temptation to embark upon a lengthy exposition of this chapter, I want to return to the idea of eyewitness testimony. The Jews attack Jesus’ teachings as false because supposedly he does not have any credible witnesses. Jesus, however, invokes the Father as his witness, and goes as far as to say that the Father had both sent him and told him what to say (8:16, 28). Being sent by God to say what God has told you to say sounds more like a prophet than a claim to divine identity. That’s what, in my mind, makes 8:38 such a radical statement. This not to say that Christ has not made any claims to deity up until 8:38. In fact, he has already made many, but with respect to the language he uses to support his teachings as God-approved, 8:38 reveals an even deeper relationship between Jesus and the Father than simply his prophetic office.

Instead of repeating the assertion that he is teaching what he has “heard” from the Father, Jesus changes the language. He charges that he “speaks” of what he has “seen” with his Father. Here is where the eyewitness testimony appears. Jesus’ claims are the fruit both of what he has “seen” and “heard“. There is a trinitarian perspective to be understood in this element. Jesus is “from above” and has come into the world proclaiming what he has seen to be true from his relationship with the Father. He knows that his words are true because the Father loves him and he loves the Father. The Father has sent him from the realm of glory and has told him what to say. There is fellowship and communication in the Trinity. Thus, Jesus is able to claim that his ministry is the product of both of what he has “seen” and “heard” with his Father. There is an inter-trinitarian dynamic at work that shows the community of the Godhead.

Jesus says in John 10:30 that, “I and the Father are one” and also back in 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Thus, 8:38 contributes to the unity and diversity in the Trinity. The Father is God and Jesus is God. In fact, the entirety of John Chapter 8 leads up to this point. Jesus, however, highlights the distinction of his identity as the Son. Jesus is an eyewitness to the truth of his identity as the Christ and the Son of God in his heavenly, personal communion with the Father. He has personally experienced and seen the affirmation of God the Father over his personhood as God the Son from eternity past, as well as when the time was right, his being sent into the world to be the Word made flesh. In other words, in 8:38, Jesus reveals that he is not simply repeating what he has been told by God, but that he is also teaching what he has “seen” in person to be true with his Father, namely that, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life (8:12).”

What a wonderful truth! It is a powerful reality to know that not only our Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus are the fruit of eyewitness testimony, but even more so, that within the narratives themselves, Jesus reveals that his own account of himself is the result of eyewitness testimony from his trinitarian relationship with the Father. Hence, in the spirit of John’s Gospel account, when you believe the Beloved Disciple’s testimony that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” you are also believing Jesus’ very own testimony of himself. I pray that you will believe in what you have “seen” and “heard” in the canonical witness to Christ, and that with John, ”by believing you may have life in his name.”

I haven’t had as much time lately to listen to online audo messages, lectures, podcasts, etc., but here’s a few that I believe are worth passing on to you for your listening pleasure.

• Gordon-Conwell Lectureship on Worldview (listen on iTunes) ~ Charles Colson – As the keynote speaker of his own sponsored seminary lectures, Colson demonstrates in about an hour long message why he is such a prominent voice in Christianity. He touches everything from politics, to an assesment of the Emergent church, and the need for Christians to recover a sound understanding of orthodoxy. The lecture is a basic unpacking of his new book called The Faith, which is his cry for contemporary Christianity to know “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).” I think we all can agree that we are living in one of the most theologically/historically illiterate Christian cultures of all time. It is no wonder that believers are swept away by every wave of doctrine.
• “What Can Christians Learn from the Blues?” (listen on iTunes) ~ Al Mohler Radio Program – On this particular episode, Dr. Russell Moore hosts while Mohler is gone. Moore interviews Stephen Nichols, who in my opinion is a fascinating writer insofar as he has put out works on Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, the Church Fathers, and now, the Blues called, Getting the Blues:What Blues Music Teaches Us about Suffering and Salvation. It’s a great discussion, with some interesting comments from callers.
• “The Bible as Literature: Understanding What the Concept Means” (listen on iTunes) ~ SEBTS Chapel – Dr. Leland Ryken – Dr. Ryken has famously been one of the major proponents for giving priority in one’s hermeneutic to reading and interpreting the Bible as literature. He is right in his critique that the Bible has been abused in the past by overlooking this issue. He argues that God not only inspired the content, but also the forms of Scripture; therefore, when we approach the Bible to discern its meaning, in order to fully grasp what the author is saying, we must give heed to whether it is poetry, wisdom, narrative, letter, etc.
• “The Bible as Literature: Implications for the Seminary and the Pulpit“ (listen on iTunes) ~ SEBTS Chapel – Dr. Leland Ryken – This is the second lecture Dr. Ryken gave at SEBTS on the subject above. I believe these messages will help spark some new ideas in those of you who haven’t really thought about the Bible in this way.
• “Proclaiming the Excellencies of Christ, Not Prosperity, Among the Nations” (listen on iTunes) ~ John Piper – This is a powerful message on missions from Piper, but it is especially good because he tackles the topic of prosperity preachers, and how their gospel is not the gospel of God in Christ. If you know enough about Piper, you know that he is adamantly against the “prosperity gospel,” so you can expect him to be in full form in this sermon.

Francis Schaeffer always labors to embolden Christians to be evangelistic towards aspects of society that we would not normally engage, but also does so by posing the question as to why we’re not already taking the love of Christ into those places and to those people. In The God Who Is There, Schaeffer traces the major shift in the thought for modern man through areas such as philsophy, science, and music. He also analyzes how art portrays the hopelessness of man and how he struggles with worldviews that won’t hold any water. In the final paragraph of the chapter on art, I think that his terminology is very poignant with respect to its paradoxical nature.

His words leave a lasting impression insofar as typically art is perceived as beautiful, but often times the implications of what it is meant to portray, or rather communicate, is not very pretty at all. In fact, most of the major artists that he mentions in this chapter all either attempted or succeeded at suicide. On the other hand, Christianity can come across very ugly, which is quite disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the gospel is the most glorious and magnificent masterpiece in all the universe. And what Schaeffer means here by describing it as “ugly” is not in reference to the world’s reception of the offense of the cross. It is the failure of Christians to be proper ambassadors of Christ to a lost and dying world in desperate need of reconciliation. A good question to ask yourself is do you treat the unbelieving world with a type of Christian snobbery, hording the gospel to yourself, or do you carry in your body a broken spirit for the people in this world who are searching for meaning in this life, but keep coming up empty and without a lasting hope?

Here’s the final paragraph to Schaeffer’s chapter on art in The God Who Is There. It is very sobering:

These paintings, these poems, and these demonstrations which we have been talking about are the expression of men who are struggling with their appalling lostness. Dare we laugh at such things? Dare we feel superior when we view their tortured expressions in their art? Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously. Then we shall have the right to speak again to our generation. These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them? There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion (54).

Well, it’s that time of year again. The Francis Schaeffer Book Club at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is set to start a new book for a new semester. Last Spring we read The Church at the End of the 20th Century and The Church Before the Watching World. These were both great texts with plenty of standard Schaeffer material, packed full of an abundance of topics for us to ponder. This Fall we are going to pick up what is probably Schaeffer’s longest book as well as what was the first book he ever wrote, namely, The God Who is There. This source is also the first work in what is known as the Francis Schaeffer Trilogy (The God Who is There, He is There and He is not Silent, and Escape from Reason).

As usual, we will be blessed by the impeccable leadership of Dr. David P. Bertch who is a professor for The Collge at Southwestern. Dr. Bertch is well-equipped to oversee such a club inasmuch as he has mastered all of Schaeffer’s works and even spent some time directly under Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri in the 1960s.

We will be meeting on Tuesdays this year instead of Wednesdays, but will continue to gather at 12 noon. In addition, we will resume our traditional location in the conference room directly across from the Gold Card office in the Naylor Student Center. Bring lunch, your copy of the book, and all of your ideas and thoughts as we meet each week not only to pour over Schaeffer’s writings, but also to let Schaeffer pour into each one of us. The more I read of him the more I grow to love the man just as much as what he wrote. In fact, I’d say that the two are utterly inseparable. This isn’t the case always with books. I’ve read several works where, to my disappointment, I walked away with no earthly idea what the author was actually like. Sometimes I wonder if the author even had a personality.

I can testify that it is impossible to finish a Schaeffer book and not be compelled to grow as a Christian, not simply because of what he wrote, but even more so, because you realize that the words on the page came from the overflow out of the abundance of his heart. Orthodox theology, redeemed philosophy, reasonable and rational thinking, utter honesty, sound critiques, and total transparency are all what you can expect to encounter when investigating Schaeffer’s writings.

Our first meeting will be on August 26 at 12 o’clock. You should have read the “Preface” and “Chapter 1“. I hope that if you can, you will not pass up the opportunity to gather with us once a week and voluntarily place yourself in a position to be encouraged and changed in so many ways for the sake of Christ’s kingdom.

Last week I interacted with some atheists on an atheist’s blog on a post that wasn’t necessarily antagonistic towards Christianity, or Christians in general for that matter. The topic was the familiar atheisitic observation that most of the world’s major religions, specifically Christianity, disdain the present life and our current dwelling place, namely earth, due to the fact that we are “only passing through” and are eager to be the catalysts for setting off ”the End of Days” or the Apocalypse. I responded trying to communicate that, though there is some truth to those ideas, at least for Christianity’s sake, the Bible does not allow in any way, shape, or form for believers to look at this life with contempt. One man replied to my comments with a general assertion that anyone who holds to the view that there is an afterlife will inevitably devalue his or her life on earth, and thus, would soon view this present state as nothing more than a waiting room for the “main event”.

The implications, if such a perception were in fact true, would lead Christians to definitely withdraw any type of serious concern or involvment from issues such as the environment, the society, the government, and really anything else that would not fall under the priority of a basic evangelical, or rather “Christian” agenda. Knowing that the theme of my blog, which is an overflow out of my philosophy of life, is the “journey” or “Sojourner” motif, this has been something that I’ve tried to prevent others from assuming, since it would seem at a very surface level to be true. Looking at Christianity in particular, do our doctrines of heaven, hell, and eschatology leave us no choice but to devalue the life we now live? Do the Scriptures guard us from having a divine license to trash this world because something better is to come? Well, though you all may already know all the answers to these questions, I’ve been meditating on this issue, and I wanted to compile a brief and concise, though by no means exhaustive, list of reasons why the Bible does not permit Christians to devalue this life, despite the fact that some of us may in fact do.

1. Genesis 1:31 – “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” We see this positive affirmation from God in response to his divine creative activity in making all that exists before the Fall in Gen 3, but never see him retract it once sin enters the world. The Lord was pleased with the physicality of the universe, and though we see in Scripture his extreme displeasure towards a contaminated world and humanity, God still expects his people to tend and to care for his creation, even our own bodies, despite the truth that one day he will remove the curse and make all things new.
2. Exodus 20/The Ten Commandments - With commandments from the One True God like “You shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, and covet” it would be rather difficult for God’s people to trivialize the importance of living rightly on this earth. Moreover, these commands, if kept, benefit more than just the obedient individual; they are a blessing to everyone else also. In addition, the admonition for one to honor his or her father and mother does not in any way permit a person of any age to reduce his or her relationship with one’s parents to something of insignificance. This is, of course, a very special commandment insofar as the Apostle Paul points out in Ephesians 6:2 that ”this is the first commandment with a promise.”
3. Matthew 6:19-21 - “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, . . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, . . . For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Taking into account the reality of an afterlife, especially one as glorious as the eternal future that awaits us in heaven with God and the saints, our earthly lives have a direct effect on the welfare of our heavenly ones. To say it another way, in the words of Maximus Decimus Meridias from Gladiator, “Brothers, what we do here in life, echoes in eternity.” Obviously, I don’t have the space nor the time to flesh out exactly how “treasures” ought to be defined, but what we can recognize immediately from this text is that what we do in life now will have a lasting effect on the one we will have in the age to come. Not much room for any devaluing here.
4. Romans 13: 1-7 (cf. Matt 22:21ff) - “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have benn instituted by God (13:1).” Point blank, Christians are to be the best of citizens. I am more than aware that this is both a broad and controversial subject; however, Scripture is clear here in Rom 13 that as part of this life, we are subject to those whom God has set in place. This not only says we are to stay out of trouble with the law, but that we also ought to have a genuine concern, interest, and involvment with the state of political affairs wherever we may live. Once again, there isn’t much room for Christian passivity in this case as we wait for the heavens to open and the trumpets to sound.
5. Romans 12:1; 1 Cor 6:19-20 (cf. Rom 6:4) - “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. . . . So glorify God in your body.” As I mentioned earlier under Genesis 1, though corrupted by the Fall, there is still an element of worth retained in God’s creation, even our bodies. These two verses communicate clearly that we are still capable of using our physical bodies in a manner that glorifies God. This is true especially in light of the early part of 1 Cor 6:19-20 where Paul asks rhetorically, “Or do you know know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, . . .?” Any Christian who would slip into some form of modern Gnosticism thereby hating one’s material body has completely missed the point of an extreme amount of the purpose of the Cross and redemption in itself. There is no excuse for believers to devalue this present life in light of these truths.
6. Mark 12:29-31 - Ah yes, the first and second greatest commandments. We most certainly must not leave these out. For as Jesus said in Matt 22:40, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” However, not to neglect the immense implications of the first greatest commandment for our study, the second one is purely fundamental for this topic. Who is my neighbor? Well, I think the answer is everyone. The interesting thing about the use of the term “neighbor” here in Jesus’ teaching is that it never stipulates as to whether your “neighbor” is friend or foe. But what is certain is that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this task can only be fulfilled by someone who is doing quite the opposite of devaluing his or her earthly life.
7. The Incarnation/John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Wow, what a verse! This has to be one of my absolute favorite passages of Scripture. How often we forget the immediate implications of the Incarnation. I think too that we have neglected to meditate upon the nature of the Son of God in a post-resurrection state. Jesus never ceased from being the Incarnate Word. That truth speaks volumes with respect to how we ought to view and to treat our fleshly lives now and our time on earth in these bodies. Jesus most definitely valued his life while in this world. He treasured his opportunity to enter this realm, to love his disciples, to heal the masses, to recline at the table with others, to fellowship with the little children, to stand for God’s truth, and to endure the cross and the shame for the joy that was set before him (Heb 12:1-3). Christians must not belittle their privilege to take up their crosses and to walk in the paths of the Savior who humbled himself in the form of a servant and was born in the likeness of men to be crushed by the Father so that all of the universe may be restored and renewed and that his wrath and justice might be satified, and then, his creation, in perfect holiness, may ascribe to him the glory that is due to his name forever (Phil 2:5-11; Rom 8:18-25; Isa 53:10; 1 Chron 16:29).

Fellow Christians, when we devalue this life, we devalue the cross and the person of Christ. Let us not be so careless nor that over zealous. But let us still continue on in the journey to a better country.