The Gospel Coalition

We’re just one month away from Union University’s conference: Southern Baptists and the Futhre of Evangelicalism. The line-up of speakers includes Al Mohler, Timothy George, Danny Akin, Ed Stetzer, Duane Liftin, and others. The cost is only $85. Hope to see you there!

Why Moralism is NOT the Gospel, and Why So Many Christians Think It Is…

Darryl Dash interviews New Testament scholar Doug Moo on what we can expect in the NIV 2011.

How the ELCA Left the Great Tradition for Protestant Liberalism

Scot McKnight laments the fragmentation of evangelicalism into different brands, which indicate a dangerous triumphalism.

Randy Alcorn’s advice for watching television.

Christian music fans rejoice! Jennifer Knapp may be making a comeback.

Tullian Tchividjian and his wife, Kim, are interviewed on Life Today. Both share fascinating testimonies to God’s grace.

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Some Thoughts on The Shack

I really didn’t want to read The Shack. I only have so much time in a day.

But a number of people have asked me to make some comments on the popular novel by William Young. And because church members eventually started asking, I decided to give it a go.

I have heard people rave about this book (in a good way), and I have heard others rave about this book (in a bad way). Some described it as the best book in the past 50 years. Others described it as the worst heresy to ever hit the Christian bookstore.

In the end, I found that The Shack wasn’t nearly as good as some had said, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as others had charged. It has everything positive about contemporary evangelicalism, and yet it has all the drawbacks of current evangelical expression too.

Before we get started, let me deal with (by far) the biggest objection I have gotten when offering a critique of The Shack…

“Don’t you realize that The Shack is fiction?”

Some Shack enthusiasts dismiss the very notion that one can critique fiction. When theologians and pastors critique the portrayal of God in this book, Shack fans quickly revert to the idea that one can’t properly judge fiction. Dan Brown has made a similar case regarding the factual errors of The Da Vinci Code. (I am not putting Brown and Young’s books in the same category, only pointing out that both authors have questioned the legitimacy of critiquing fiction.)

Of course, no one is suggesting that The Shack and The Da Vinci Code are works of non-fiction. However, fiction forms us. Violent entertainment can be labeled “fantasy.” The same with romance novels. But we would be silly to think that this type of fictitious entertainment has no formative influence upon us. Fictional stories can exert a great deal of influence on how we see the world.

Fiction is not off limits from critique. Brown speaks of actual historical figures. Young delivers a memorable portrayal of true Persons (the Trinity). When you deal with non-fictional characters, you inevitably open yourself up to criticism.

Let’s say you meet an author who wants to use your grandparents as the main characters in a novel. The author tells you that the narrative will be fictional, but that your grandparents will have the starring roles. Sounds great! you think.

But when the manuscript arrives in your hands, you discover that the story does not accurately represent the personalities of your grandparents. The relationship between them is all wrong too. Grandma berates Grandpa. Early on, they run off and elope (which is totally out of character). At one point, they contemplate divorce.

When you complain, the author responds, “Remember? I told you it would be fictional.”

“Yes,” you say, somewhat exasperated, “I knew the story would be fictional, but I thought you would get my grandparents right. The grandparents in your story aren’t anything like my grandparents.”

“Who cares?” the author responds. “It’s a work of fiction.”

“Well, I care,” you say, “because people will put down this book thinking that my grandparents were like the way you portrayed them.”

My biggest problem with The Shack is its portrayal of God. I understand that the book is a work of fiction, not a theological treatise, and therefore should be treated as fiction. But the main characters are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are actual Persons. To portray God in a manner inconsistent with his revelation to us in Scripture (and primarily in Jesus) is to misrepresent living Persons.

When people put down The Shack, they will not have a better understanding of the Trinity (despite the glowing blurbs on the back cover). They will probably have a more distorted view of God in three Persons.

The Positives

To be fair, I found a few things I liked about The Shack. Here are the positives:

1. The story doesn’t sugarcoat evil. It takes sin and suffering seriously.
2. The book focuses upon God meeting us in our suffering. God is not absent in our pain. When someone is in the deepest of grief and despair, God often makes himself most present.
3. The book shows the need for a personal encounter with God. Christianity is about communion with a personal, relational God.

Now to the negative aspects of The Shack:

A very low view of the institutional church.

Jesus claims to not recognize the institution of the church as something he started. I understand the intense pain of being burned by a local church. Some readers will resonate with Young’s description of local church imperfections. But evangelicalism is already plagued with solutions to suffering that emphasize “me and Jesus” or “me and God.” We need community! The Shack compounds the problems of individualism and makes the institutional church unnecessary and irrelevant.

A low view of the Bible.

The Shack so emphasizes the personal encounter with God in Mack’s mystical experience that the Scriptures become irrelevant. The Bible is reduced to words on paper that need to be decoded by those with theological training. Instead, “you will learn to hear my thoughts in yours,” says Sarayu (the Holy Spirit). “You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow…” In other words, look everywhere else but the Bible to find God. Oprah would be pleased.

The distorted view of the Trinity.

There is absolutely no sense of transcendence and holiness. It is the “God is my buddy” perspective on steroids. Compare (better yet, contrast!) Mack’s encounter with God to the final chapters of Job or the stunning vision of God that Isaiah witnesses in the temple. One can hardly imagine Young’s “Papa” eliciting the same kind of response. The God of the Bible cares deeply how he is portrayed. To tamper with the way God has revealed himself is to put forth a false picture of God.

Why is this book popular?

We should never let a cultural phenomenon go by without wondering about the reasons for its popularity. Here are a few reasons I think The Shack is so popular:

1. Missing fathers. So many people have grown up with absent daddies or abusive father figures. For many, the mother is the rock of the home. To portray God the Father as a matriarch is bound to resonate with a good number of people.
2. The anti-authoritarian tendency of our culture. At one point in the book, God speaks of there being no roles of hierarchy in the Trinity. God even submits to humans. This resonates with a culture that already eschews traditional understandings of role and authority. (I can picture my Romanian friends rolling their eyes at The Shack and saying, “That’s so American!”)
3. The immanence of God. Evangelicals too often bring God down to the level of understanding, faithful friend. Ultimately, this view of God is shrunken and reductionist. Just like it is misrepresenting God to make him so other that he is virtually unknowable, it is misrepresenting him to make him so close and human that his God-ness is absent.

The Challenge for Evangelicals

It is easy to sit back and critique The Shack. (There is so much to critique!) But perhaps evangelicals who can see the problems with The Shack should instead invest some creative energy in writing stories that resonate with people in a similar way. As I have written elsewhere:

Do you ever wonder why stories often have a greater impact than debating the theological minutia of Bible interpretation?

C.S. Lewis could have written a fine theological treatise on what the world would have been like had Adam and Eve never sinned. But Perelandra worked much better. Lewis could have (and sometimes did) describe in colorful theological language the nature of the atonement, but Aslan sacrificing his life for rebellious Edmund fired up our imaginations. In his advice to aspiring writers, Lewis reminded them to describe truths vividly – not merely multiplying adjectives, but working hard to help people feel the beauty of the truths presented.

When I consider the phenomenal success of The Shack, the seminarian in me rises up and wants to make a detailed list of the book’s many theological aberrations. But perhaps the greater challenge for someone like me is to recognize the power of a good story and then to take a bestseller like The Shack as an incentive to write better stories.

Book titles are important. Smart titles tell you about the book’s contents in a memorable way. Brilliant titles make a statement in and of themselves.

Crossway has recently published a collection of essays from a variety of Southern Baptist leaders. David Dockery is the editor of the new book, whose title says more in nine words than some books say in hundreds of pages. Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future (Crossway, 2009) implicitly makes the case that Southern Baptists are indeed evangelicals.

Thirty years ago, Southern Baptists were debating amongst themselves as to their identity. Moderates rejected the evangelical label because they wanted to see us belonging to the tradition of the mainline Protestant denominations. More recently, some conservatives have been reticent to adopt the evangelical label because of the fear we might water down our Baptist distinctives.

The title of Dockery’s book demonstrates a willingness to be both evangelical (hence the “evangelical denomination” in the subtitle) and distinctively Baptist (hence the “Baptist Identity” in the title). Ecumenical evangelicalism and distinctive Baptist identity come together wonderfully in this collection of essays.

Before getting into the specifics of this book, let me first point out the curious fact that this very Baptist book has been published by an evangelical, non-denominational publisher – Crossway. One might have expected Broadman and Holman (the Southern Baptist publisher) to put out this book. The very fact that Crossway saw a need for these essays to be published is an indication that other evangelical groups are looking to the Southern Baptist Convention as an example. The future of the American evangelical movement may be tied somehow to the future of Southern Baptists.

The essays in Southern Baptist Identity come primarily from lectures delivered at Union University’s recent “Baptist Identity” conferences. Since this book is a collection of essays from a variety of Southern Baptist leaders, the reader can discern some areas of disagreement between the contributors.

For example, Greg Wills comes down very strongly against the idea of open communion, arguing for the practice of close communion (which has been the most widely held historic Baptist position on the Lord’s Supper). Yet Nathan Finn (though he agrees with Wills on close communion) believes that the Baptist Faith and Message should leave that question open-ended enough for churches to disagree on the matter.

The book is divided into two main sections. First come the essays that contain theological and historical perspectives on the Southern Baptist Convention. Then, there are essays that focus on specific ministries and convention matters.

David Dockery begins the book by describing the current state of Southern Baptists in the 21st century. He expounds on some of the points in his book Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal.

Dr. Albert Mohler writes about the future of Southern Baptist identity.

Greg Wills, a historian and professor at Southern Seminary, writes about the distinctive identity of Southern Baptists in the past.

Timothy George has a chapter in which he gives his personal testimony and also asks the thought provoking question, ‘Is Jesus a Baptist?’. He writes:

“We will not meet tomorrow’s challenge by forgetting yesterday’s dilemma, but neither will we win tomorrow’s struggles by fighting yesterday’s battles.” (92)

He also points out the inherent narcissism of focusing so intently on the identy of Baptists (101), which provides a helpful corrective to some insular tendencies within the SBC.

Russ Moore gives a fascinating glimpse into 19th century Baptist life, particularly the influence of Baptist printed materials in the Whitsett controversy and the pastoral role of T. T. Eaton. (He also has some good words on blogging.)

I particularly enjoyed Paige Patterson’s chapter on the Anabaptists. Patterson demonstrates a willingness to learn from these uncles of ours, and he even recommends we look to our independent Baptist brothers and sisters.

“Independent Baptists of a former generation may have been guilty of emphasizing ‘separation’ to the point of legalism, but the trajectory of the contemporary church seems destined to miss the goal of holiness of life and thought.” (133)

In the second section of the book, the contributors focus on specific Convention matters that involve our cooperation in common mission.

I thoroughly enjoyed Morris Chapman’s chapter on cooperation. Chapman wisely lists ways in which cooperation is undermined, and yet offers helpful suggestions for fostering an attitude of cooperation. Suprisingly, Chapman appears to favor a restructuring of the SBC:

“The SBC needs fine-tuning. In fact, the Convention may require an overhaul, not in its polity, but in its programming and the processes by which it functions daily. A major overhaul by the national Convention and the state conventions appears to be an absolute necessity, letting the facts speak for themselves lest the conventions discover too late they were blind and deaf to a delivery system that better serves the churches.” (171)

Such a bold statement makes me wonder why Chapman opposed the Great Commission Task Force, which hopes to analyze the structure of the SBC and recommend improvements. I wonder if Chapman is not so much opposed to the idea of restructuring, but instead is uncomfortable with the people leading the Task Force.

Ed Stetzer has a good chapter on Missional Churches. He writes:

“Our churches need to be biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter-cultural communities.” (193)

Jim Shaddix writes about the future of the traditional church. He makes the case that relevance is not just about form. It’s about substance.

The last two chapters in the book are by Danny Akin and Nathan Finn. They set forth a vision for the future for the SBC. These are thought provoking essays that will foster good conversation.

Southern Baptist Identity is brimming with insights that shine light on possible directions for the future of the SBC. The book’s recommendations deserve to be read, discussed, debated upon, and in most cases, put into action.

“I just don’t have peace yet.”

“God isn’t opening any doors.”

“I’m not sure which way God is leading my heart.”

The more I am in ministry, the more I hear young people echoing some of the above sentiments when it comes to the future. Truth be told, I too have postponed important decisions for some of the same reasons.

The desire to discover the will of God is admirable. But what happens when your expectations for discovering God’s will don’t ever come to pass?

At the age of 19, when I was wrestling with the decision of buying a one-way ticket to Romania, I went to my pastor for advice. I was waiting for some sort of heavenly confirmation of my plans. My pastor delivered a few gentle words that revolutionized my understanding of God’s will: “Trevin, no one wants you to know God’s will more than God does.”

Liberation! God’s will was not some mysterious code I had to decipher. It was a realm in which I could make wise decisions.

Kevin DeYoung’s book, Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. (Moody, 2009) will probably have a similar effect on people who pick it up. Just Do Something is a short book (only 120 pages, and small in size) that can easily be read in an hour or two, but it still packs quite a punch.

Kevin gently corrects evangelicalism’s often-misguided teaching about the will of God. Lining the shelves of Christian bookstores are books intended to help people discover God’s will. Yet, much of the standard advice turns out to be paralyzing to young people. Other books focus on trivial decisions (where to park your car, what outfit to put on, etc.).

Kevin points us back to the sovereingty of God, encouraging us to take comfort in the will of God. The general will of God has been revealed to us. Christians are called to live within that moral framework.

According to Kevin, here is the will of God for our lives:

“God’s will for our lives is much simpler than the conventional approach. The will of God for our lives is that we seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. The most important decision we face is the daily decision to live for Christ and die to self. If we do those two things then we are free to choose between jobs and schools and locations. God wants us to stop obsessing about the future and trust that He holds the future. We should put aside the passivity and the perfectionism and the quest for perfect fulfillment and get on with our lives. God does not have a specific plan for our lives and he means for us to decipher ahead of time.” (63)

Kevin writes that God does have a specific plan for our lives, and he is not trying to hide it from us. When we are trusting in God to work out his purposes, we are no longer paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake. Instead, we can “just do something!” We are to do what we believe what God has called us to do with the gifts that God has given us. And even when we are not 100% sure of our decision, we trust that God knows the outcome, and that our life will be part of his sovereign plan.

Kevin’s book differs from others on the will of God because he chooses to focus less on discerning the “specific plan” for your personal life and more on the cultivation of wisdom. We don’t make decisions based on signs and circumstances as much as we make decisions based on biblical wisdom. Instead of asking for revelation from God as to what you should do, ask for the wisdom from God to be able to make the right kind of decisions.

Just Do Something would make a great Graduation gift for the young people in our churches. And yet, anyone of any age can benefit from the teaching here.  Kevin’s book frees us from passivity and paralysis. He calls us to get on with the task of “doing something” to the glory of God.