To Everything, There is a Time, And a Season, And a Purpose
I just finished reading “The Shack” by William P. Young today – and I was then drawn to do a little research on the Web about whether or not the story was based on any true events – or if it was entirely fictitious.
There is very little question that one would not need to look too far in our modern society to find a “Little Ladykiller” among us, or to have a friend or neighbor who had suffered at the hands of such an atrocity. It is in our daily news broadcasts – even good church goers like Dennis Rader, the BTK serial killer who, by the way, was elected president of the Congregation Council of the church he had attended for 30 years, and was also a Cub Scout leader – can become monsters and prey on the weak and vulnerable among us.
It is not very alarming that a broad spectrum of our society would have serious and lingering questions about why God would not stop such acts, whether there is forgiveness and redemption for those involved, who is to blame if there is any way to ascertain just where such brutality begins from generation to generation, is there any closure or reconciliation possible, and that if there is a God of love – why He allows such things in the first place?
Even those that are not scorched by such tragic events have similar questions about their everyday lives.
What about the way they treat their spouses, children, families, and coworkers? How is God involved in that? What does the Holy Spirit do – and what kind of personality is the Holy Spirit? Was Jesus really real, and if so, what does his sacrifice on the cross mean to me in my everyday life?
And here is a real good one for those of you who read the Old Testament – if God can change His mind, like he did with Moses, does that mean that God can lose His mind too?
In researching and reading reviews and comments on the book, I think the most surprising thing to me was the reaction of “Christian” theologians – warning their flocks to beware of the theological underpinnings of the book.
It reminded me a little bit of the song The Byrds made famous, “Turn, Turn, Turn”, penned by Pete Seeger. I liked the song, and still do – there is a lot of scripture or paraphrased scripture used there – almost the whole song in fact, except that final line, “Turn, turn, turn”. That didn’t come from scripture.
If I were to apply the same reasoning to that song that some of these writers, including Tim Challies, Norman Geisler, and others applied to “The Shack” – then I would have to quit listening to songs like “Turn, Turn, Turn” because of the omission of some words from the original King James Bible – and the addition of that last line. What was Pete Seeger thinking anyway – and what kind of theology is that? “Turn, turn, turn”?
I watched “The Da Vinci Code” too – but I didn’t do so to see if I could improve my understanding of theological tenants.
In other words, if I was going to read “The Shack” for my theology – then perhaps their observations are relevant.
One thing can not be denied, and that is that Willie (he goes by his middle name Paul) certainly broached a lot of deep material in this book – subjects that are not often covered in the Sunday meetings that I have attended. He certainly has some deep, and first hand, insights into losing loved ones under tragic circumstances, the resultant pain, grief, and self-doubt, the need for human relationships – and even our relationship to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He may not have all his ducks lined up as far as the modern council of the Sanhedrin is concerned – but he sure did get people thinking. It is, after all – fiction.
A lot of the criticism is in his approach to the persons of God. He certainly has taken some liberties there.
When you change the paradigm – then you have the opportunity to view the tenants and boundaries of the established or former paradigm in a new way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you are going to abandon them, you might, in fact, hold to them more dearly than before – providing that your understanding of them was somewhat solid in the first place. Perhaps that is what the theologians are worried about – that they have not prepared their flocks for controversial viewpoints like these.
I have one thought on the resultant theological hair splitting by the status quo – it is this. “The Shack” and its popularity among a large “Christian” audience have hit a sensitive nerve among the Doctors of the Law, and I think it is primarily because “The Shack” does preach freeing yourself from their doctrine, and from their seeming inability to address and answer the deep questions posed in “The Shack”.
Perhaps that is the greatest failure or weakness of the status quo when it comes to our relationship with God – they have put God in a box, their box, and have defined what their understanding of the boundaries of the box are – and they insist that unless we accept God in their way – then we are heretics.
The problem with this is that more often then not – when the Spirit of God moves – the human reaction is just like Peter, when he and James and John saw Jesus transfiguration, “Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.” – Humans want it written in stone. They try to capture the moment so that they can point back to that time and place and say, “it was right there that we met with God.” But as soon as they do that, and try to itemize and set down their rules and requirements for admission into God’s presence, they lose contact with the Spirit of God.
In his book “The Case for Christ” – by Lee Strobel, Ben Witherington III, PH.D. points out that Jesus Himself – when He spoke to the Jewish leaders about who He was, violated some of their most sacred ideas about their relationship with God, “Jesus makes the truly radical statement that it’s not what enters a person that defiles him but what comes out of his heart. Frankly, this sets aside huge portions of the Old Testament book of Leviticus, with its meticulous rules concerning purity.”
These violations of Jewish tradition and the Law were the reason given by the religious leaders to have Him arrested, tried as a blasphemer, and then crucified. However, the scripture tells us another story about their motives, “But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.”
Jesus Himself warned, in His famous “eat my flesh and drink my blood” sermon – “Doth this offend you? [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.”
Presuming to understand all that is written in the Bible is a fairly heady assignment.
If the present day Sanhedrin’s model was working so well, then how come they have not come out with answers to these difficult and challenging questions in a way that has rung true with believers and non-believers alike? Perhaps it is because they don’t have all of their ducks lined up either.
I think that turning this story into a theological debate is missing a lot of the point. Your theology and my theology are probably not based on one or two volumes of study. In fact, your understanding of the Holy Scriptures is probably subjective in some way or another – and you can’t simply declare that since a whole bunch of you have agreed that the scriptures say this or that – that indeed they do. Don’t forget about The Jesus Seminar and others like them.
It is recorded in the Old Testament that “the LORD appeared unto him (Abram) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,” Some believe that these were three angels. Some believe that one of them was the Son of God. It doesn’t really say does it? It does say that two angels entered Sodom – leaving us to believe that in fact, the one who stayed back was the Son of God, but we really aren’t sure. If it was the Lord Jesus, the question then arises how Jesus had a body before he was born?
Some might consider this to be pretty important theology – but to most people today – the question of what is happening regarding a serial killer and the victims of such crimes is probably a lot more relevant.
Until the theologians and representatives of this present day and age are able to bring the things of God and the things of the Spirit to people in an engaging and vibrant manner – then books like “The Shack” will fill the void – and who’s to say it isn’t God Himself who is behind it.
“And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” – The Apostle