 |
|
|
Ice, The Ultimate Disaster,'' predicted the planetary alignment would trigger a chain of events that will cause the Earth's crust to slide and poles to shift. ``It would be a geological Armageddon'
-- Richard Noone
|
|
| |
by John McPherson
This concludes my critique of William Young's novel. Mr. Young has presented us with a view of God that really, in my view, does not match the God who revealed Himself to us in the Bible. I'll get into some of the finer points of disagreement in this concluding article.
Young gets lost in contradictory profundities when Mack suddenly sits back down in the judgment seat and realizes that nothing to do with Christ’s sacrifice of Himself on the cross really reconciles his understanding of the infinitely knowledgeable, ever-Present (all-Present), all-Powerful God the Creator with his little daughter’s brutal, undeserved death. Here is how the nameless entity in the cave responds to Mack’s heart-wrenching confession of a lack of understanding: “But I still don’t understand why Missy had to die.” “She didn’t have to, Mackenzie. This was no plan of Papa’s.” Wait, wait, wait. The author has just finished introducing us to the transcendent, infinite God of infinite Love in the person of Papa, earlier. His “plans” are all-encompassing and infinite, supposedly. He knows all that ever has been and ever will be. So in what sense is this little girl’s murder NOT part of “Papa’s plan”? The Understanding Express has once again jumped the rails of logic and reason, here. “Papa has never needed evil to accomplish his good purposes.” THAT one remains open to Scriptural debate. [Isa. 45:7; Isa. 47:11] Later on in the story, we discover that this nameless entity is, in fact, Sophia – the embodiment of God’s wisdom (per the descriptions of her in Proverbs). What we DON’T see on display in this exchange between Sophia and Mack is any element of God’s true Wisdom as revealed in His Word. God's personal friends in ancient times consistently challenged Him concerning His actions and in relation to His Person and their understanding of His ways. In the story, Mack doesn't seem to have any such relationship with God, nor does that kind of relationship appear to be an option for Christians today.
The problem with Mr. Young's "god" or "Papa" is that he doesn't have the same commitment to a relationship based on trust and mutual respect that the God of the Bible does. Mutual respect. What a revolutionary concept. I believe God wants to be able to show respect to - and trust in - HIS PEOPLE as much as He expects to be respected and trusted BY His People. Obviously, because humans are so fickle and readily swayed from our commitments, God anticipates failure on our part. We don't anticipate the same from him, of course. And one wonders...IS there a possibility that God could fail His People? Uhoh. Now the red flags go up. What's John thinking now? Does he have to push the envelope so far? Yes, given the fact that David, the prophets and others question God's dealings with man in fairly blunt terms at times, I think we have the freedom to do the same. God is remarkably unoffended by this exercise.
Does God, on occasion, make mistakes? Let's check His Word and see. "12Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults." (Psalm 19:12) "5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen. 6:5,6)" "10 My defense is of God, which saveth the upright in heart. 11God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. 12 If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready." (Psalm 7:10-12) "9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Jonah 3:9,10)
Note that the indications in the texts above is that God is capable of changing His mind in response to acceptable human behavior - particularly when people repent in response to disciplinary measures, or even the threat of such action. The seemingly rhetorical question "who can understand His errors" in Psalm 19, above, may not, in fact, be rhetorical at all. God's perfection is involved with the immutability of His Person - NOT His actions and dealings with - and plans for - mutable, fallible, changeable man. In other words...is it possible that God makes some regrettable choices and decisions Himself? Regrettable from HIS perspective (such as is indicated in Gen. 6, above? He, himself, seems to indicate that this is possible. But there's another possibility involved with God's dealings with His people, when there appears to be failure on His part. I'll get into that in more detail in a bit.
One of the biggest concerns I have with this book is the position it takes on man’s God-given autonomy. This book advocates AGAINST human “independence”. Independence is “self-destructive” and, ultimately, evil according to Young. On a Biblical note, as I have shown in various articles here, God actually goes out of his way to ENSURE that man has the opportunity to make autonomous choices. Young has it completely backwards. The autonomous choices made by spiritually reborn people are prompted by their new natures, but both regenerated and unregenerated people have the divinely provided opportunity to make volitionally independent choices. Here’s how Young puts it, by putting these words in “god’s mouth”:
“Nobody knows the horrors I have saved the world from ‘cuz people can’t see what never happened. All evil flows from independence and independence is your choice. If I were to simply revoke all the choices of independence, the world as you know it would cease to exist and love would have no meaning. This world is not a playground where I keep all my children free from evil. Evil is the chaos of this age that you brought to me, but it will not have the final say. Now it touches everyone that I love, those who follow me and those who don’t.”
“People are tenacious when it comes to the treasure of their imaginary independence. They hoard and hold their sickness with a firm grip. They find their identity and worth in their brokenness and guard it with every ounce of strength they have. No wonder grace has such little attraction. In that sense you have tried to lock the door of your heart from the inside.”
“Actually,’ Jesus started to speak but paused to throw one last skipping stone, ‘with [Sophia], everything is normal and elegantly simple. Because you are so lost and independent you bring to her many complications, and as a result you find even her simplicity profound.”
I came to hate the words “simple” and “simplicity” in their overuse and meaningless, trite application to truly deep, complex spiritual matters in this book. Young attempts to “dumb down” spiritual Truth for novices and those too lazy to study the Word of God for themselves. In so doing, he distorts that Truth rather drastically, and presents his own, personally invented “god” with an accompanying nonsensical relationship to, and purposes for, man. Note that Jesus supposedly considers Mack (a Christian and seminary grad) to be “lost”. One wonders in what sense Young views a Christian as being “lost”.
Unlike the Christian celebrities who endorsed this book so highly on its cover, I give “The Shack” two thumbs down, along with its insidiously anemic misrepresentation of the God of Israel. This book borders on outright blasphemy and certainly has a strong, sacrilegious element to it. Young, I believe, sincerely attempted to create a positive expression of God and His involvement with His People here, but his means of doing so actually degraded both. The scary thing is that his central character, Mack, is supposedly a seminary grad, and yet is simply clueless in his understanding of Biblical Truth. One wonders what seminaries are producing in terms of people supposedly capable of guiding others in their understanding of, and acquaintance with, God and His Word. No wonder the so-called “church” of today is in such big trouble.
SO. WHY would such a horrendous tragedy occur within a Christian family? Why would God’s people experience horrors like this? Now we get to the crux of the matter. Here is where we consider the other possibility, where seeming failure on God's part is concerned.
In real life, I see so many examples of tragedy visiting Christians and non-Christians in almost equal measure. Obviously, the primarily narcissistic, self-gratifying choices of non-Christians tend to bring more grief to them than the more self-less choices of many Christians. But why would Christians suffer some of the same horrors as non-Christians (non-Covenantal people)? There are several possibilities, of course, but among them I favor the view that because the God of Israel is NOT “omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent” but, in fact, is reliant upon His fallible angels to serve and protect His People (Luke 4:10; Heb. 1:4,5,7) – perhaps those angels fail in the performance of their duties from time to time. We know that the angels historically were required to give account of their actions to God (Job 1:6), and that they faced various challenges in relation to their abilities to perform their duties effectively on God’s behalf (Dan. 9:20-23; 10:10-14). It is very possible that there are times – somewhat uncommon but certainly real - when these great servants of the God of Israel fail to effectively protect His People. There are missionaries who die on the point of being rescued from their captors, others who are speared to death by the very people they feel God has “called” them to evangelize, before they even get the chance to share the gospel with those people…There are Christians who, in the middle of worshipping and praising God in a Christian rock concert “worship environment” in a modern “church”, have the floor collapse beneath them, severely injuring some and traumatizing scores of people present (a recent event here in BC, Canada). I see Christians participating in high-risk activities (like smuggling Bibles into “closed” communist and Muslim countries), believing that the God of Israel has motivated and guided them to do so, and will bless and protect them. In reality, God has no interest in this evangelistic process and effort and when His divine protection of them “fails” (per the Jim Elliott massacre/martyrdom), the ones left behind (like Jim’s wife, Elizabeth, and daughter) are left trying to pick up the pieces of a broken faith. In some cases, in other words, God's protection over His People might fail due to their being "outside of His Will". That would be one standard Christian response. The reality, however, is that God historically protects His People EVEN WHEN they have strayed from "His perfect will" and wisdom. I believe the more realistic, truer understanding of the situation lies in the failures of finite guardian angels. Angelic failure is not an easy concept to grapple with or accept - but I believe the Scriptures suggest that such a thing is most certainly possible. And that there is a measure of accountability introduced to their activities by God Himself (Job 1:6; Luke 4:10; Psalm 91:11). Something to ponder very seriously.
It’s not safe, playing games with the Truth. It’s highly inadvisable to blame God for bad decision-making based upon an erroneous understanding of Him and His Word. But too many people would rather launch out in “child-like faith” without troubling themselves to do the hard work of carefully researching God and His Person in His Word, first. God has very little patience or respect for such endeavors and people,and I share His feelings in this regard. As I said, above, I believe that the God of Israel WANTS a relationship with us based on MUTUAL respect and trust (just like humans enjoy with each other, albeit imperfectly, in a best-case scenario). God can't really respect those who don't trouble themselves to really get to know Him on a very personal basis. And these same people can't really trust and respect God without going to the effort of acquiring that kind of intimate knowledge of Him. Such knowledge involves intensive study of His Word, first and foremost - no matter how tedious people may find this exercise. If you don't like that approach - go serve some other "god". You're not ready for a relationship with the God of Israel.
In conclusion, I have to confess that by the end of "The Shack" I was rather irritated and cranky. The thinking exposed in fictional form, here, is unfortunately quite typical of the misunderstandings guiding the beliefs of mainstream evangelicalism and Churchianity as a whole. The characterization of God in this book was more of a caricature than an accurate representation of the God of Israel. The sad reality is that “church” people generally view God in the terms presented here, and find the Biblical Truth concerning His Person, Will and Kingdom anomalous and even repulsive. When Biblical Truth is rejected in favor of sweet, adorable lies - there is a very serious spiritual problem at work among those who claim to worship and serve the God of the Bible. And it needs to be addressed in a very serious way.
Serving the Truth,
John McPherson
------
John McPherson is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com. John McPherson lives in British Columbia, on the West Coast of
Vancouver Island with his wife and two boys. John enjoys studying and writing, and is currently working on a B.Th. program.
View John McPherson archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Shacked up With God (Part 2) (Score: 1)
 by tom-g on Wednesday, May 21 @ 12:02:20 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | John,
Is it all right in your version of the truth if I see no reason to worship the God of Israel but choose to worship the God of the gentiles instead? Would that be defined as idolatry, and which one is the false God? Or is it possible your article is an exercise in ambiguity?
Tom |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 22 @ 00:56:04 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 22 @ 07:15:07 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 22 @ 10:15:23 PDT
- by Paige on Thursday, May 22 @ 10:48:29 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 22 @ 11:15:25 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 22 @ 11:40:10 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 22 @ 11:54:04 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 22 @ 13:08:02 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Friday, May 23 @ 10:29:34 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 22 @ 08:30:38 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 22 @ 09:32:13 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 22 @ 13:54:05 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, May 22 @ 21:55:42 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Friday, May 23 @ 10:53:52 PDT
- by tom-g on Monday, May 26 @ 09:28:35 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Monday, May 26 @ 11:47:03 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, May 27 @ 07:19:07 PDT
Re: Shacked up With God (Part 2) (Score: 1)
by Scotty on Thursday, May 22 @ 07:53:14 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | John,
I appreciate your efforts at reviewing "The Shack." Even though I do not share your evaluation of the book, I am not offended by it all. I personally enjoyed the book very much and was wonderfully touched by it. Do I favor all of the representations of God found in the book? No! But that really is the point of the book, and in fact, the irony of your review.
Clearly-and far more in the spirit of Hebrew narrative than our western inductive and deductive synthesis-Young is using story and metaphor to wrestle with the mystery of God (1 Tim. 3:16). I am more alarmed by those who say or imply that they have it figured out. For instance, John (to point out the "irony" comment I made above), to make your case about Young's book being an attack on the classical biblical truth regarding God's nature, you employ what most conservative scholarly sources would label a denial of classic trinitarian theology, when you deny the three "O's" : omniscience, omnipresence & omnipotence.
You are critical of Young's representations of God and how he has God dealing with the world's problems, yet, your explanation is to make God the victim of irresponsible angels. Personally, I would quantify this as far more detrimental to the persona of God than Young's representations of God. To suggest as you seem to do, that the bad things, like what happens to Mack's daughter, are the result of angels asleep on the job, doesn't exonerate God; he created them. Further, I would point out that this view is far from mainstream theology.
Young's portrayal of God as an African/Jamaican woman is clearly explained in the book two ways. First male and female were created in God's image, Yet the female aspect of that rarely gets mentioned. Secondly, God uses that form of appearance (an African/Jamaican woman) because the normal conceptual view of God - as Father - is an image that Mack has difficulty with because of his own bad dad. So God-who ultimately reveals himself in classic male figure in the book-chooses a disarming manifestation of himself so as to begin the process of confronting and interacting with Mack.
Is this really much different than the many ways-some almost unbelievable(such as Balaam's ass, or a baby in a manger)-that God chose to manifest himself to man? After three years of non-stop interaction with the apostles, Philip had the audacity to say "show us the Father." Jesus responded "have I been with you so long and yet you still don't know me?" If there is a problem today, it is not with Young's efforts seeking to humanly grasp God's nature and relationship with us, rather, it is all of the theological treatises, creeds and commentaries stacked one on the other that do nothing but contradict one another and together bring no more clarity than Paul's simple declaration to Timothy (1 3:16). The reality is, the God not wrestled with in human terms and emotion is the God that cannot be embraced by humans - exactly what He wants. He is a relational God not a theological proposition.
John, let me be clear, I am not upset with you or your review. It shows me your own desire to know God more intimately; I honor that. I do hope you see however, that even you explain it in very different ways than classical theology does at times. I know personally many people who are being wonderfully touched by this book to know and approach God more intimately and successfully than they have been able to in the past; and not because they are shallow or indifferent as Bible students. Rather, they see in it, as do I, the human struggle to intimately embrace and enter into relationship with the God of Heaven and earth. Since my approach at that will always be flawed I extend grace to Young and you in ways we differ in that effort. I hope you will do likewise with me. I encourage people to read the book with an open mind. I believe that far more people will be brought closer to the God of the Bible as a result of reading it, than those who will be bot
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Thursday, May 22 @ 11:06:40 PDT
- by Scotty on Thursday, May 22 @ 12:20:18 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Friday, May 23 @ 10:41:44 PDT
Re: Shacked up With God (Part 2) (Score: 1)
by gracescarredhands on Saturday, May 24 @ 10:03:48 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear John,
You refer to God in your posts as ‘The God of Israel’. It is interesting that many posters on The Shack Forum refer to God as ‘Papa’, because He's become so personable, warm and close. And it is the testimony of many readers that their lives have been transformed. Broken hearts have been mended and people crippled by hatred, pain and grief have found freedom and forgiveness.
Who ‘heals the broken hearted and sets the captives free’? Is it not Jesus? The God of Israel?
I have almost finished ‘The Shack’. I have not felt comfortable with every aspect of the story but on the whole I have been blessed. But the book does not bless me half as much as the theology that inspired it!
John, the God we worship is a big, wonderful, multifaceted God. He is working in myriads of ways to bring glory to His Son and blessing to the world through Him. And by the Grace of God many sad and broken people have discovered through ‘The Shack’ a God who is ‘very fond of’ them. A God who is close and who loves them very much.
Repentance is a change of mind. And it seems to me that many folk who have read ‘The Shack’ now look at God differently. They don’t see an angry God any more. They believe God knows them and loves them and embraces them. And believing the Truth has changed them!!
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John. 17: 3).
How is Eternal Life manifest in an ordinary, sinful, broken life? In the fruit of the Spirit. In Joy and Peace and Love. And how does Joy, Peace and Love enter a human heart? Through a personal relationship with God.
At the heart of Trinitarian theology is God’s Plan to bring humanity into the circle of life that is Father, Son and Spirit. This was achieved through the Incarnation. Such is the Grace, Power and Love of the God of Israel.
In the words of Baxter Kruger,
“The covenant promise, “I will be your God, and you will be my people” has been filled with “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom my soul delights,” and “Abba, Father.” The blessed Trinity has met the human race as it really is in its terrible darkness, embraced us and drawn us within the trinitarian life and light and love. Through suffering our scorn and curse, Jesus has filled the fall of Adam, and the old covenant with Israel, with his own relationship with his Father and the Holy Spirit—just as it was planned before the foundation of the world.”
I have included a link to ‘The Shack Book’ Interactive Forum .. “Comments on how reading The Shack has effected me personally ..:” Do read the post by ‘Sharon’ on page 2 and the response by macjsavi on page 3.
http://theshackbook.com/discuss/index.php?topic=60.30
Is this not God at work .. the God of Israel .. ??
John, God bless you on your journey.
Gracescarredhands.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Saturday, May 24 @ 18:37:52 PDT
- by gracescarredhands on Monday, May 26 @ 07:37:16 PDT
- by gracescarredhands on Tuesday, May 27 @ 06:38:42 PDT
- by gracescarredhands on Tuesday, May 27 @ 06:43:00 PDT
Re: Shacked up With God (Part 2) (Score: 1)
by gracescarredhands on Tuesday, May 27 @ 07:54:32 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Gd’day Mr. McPherson,
I see you've been busy over at The Shack!
In a post on the interactive forum you said:
"I just have to insert the brief, Biblically-verifiable comment that the "mystery" you keep referring to came to fulfilment and completion in Christ Jesus. The "mystery" everyone touts in relation to God's Person, work and Kingdom no longer exists. It only exists in the imaginations and hearts of those who are confused about the timing of the Kingdom's full manifestation and establishment. The hermeneutical approach required to look to the future for this event (and all related ones) yields a completely distorted understanding of the Scriptures as a whole, hence the "mystery" attached to the Word of God."
John, the futurist vs past fulfilment issue is barely relevant to the story. And to suggest that preterists are the only ones who fully understand the depth, breadth, height and length of God’s Purpose in and through Christ is blatantly wrong. Preterism is one aspect of biblical revelation. But even Preterists are deeply divided. There’s full preterists and partial preterists and some of the partial preterists believe their consistent brothers and sisters are heretics. And full preterists come in every theological hue. There’s Calvinists and Aminians and Pantelists and Universalists .. and that’s just scratching the surface. There are Preterists who have grown in faith through this teaching and there are Preterists who have turned from the Living God to atheism.
So, please, be honest. There is “no mystery for those who understand the timing of the Kingdom’s full manifestation and establishment”?! ??!! How can you say that? If there was no mystery there would be no division, no debate, no disunity. PP is a place where conflicting theological interpretations are thrown into the melting pot continually.
In fact, no one on The Shack understands where you are coming from anyway. You haven’t actually come out of the closet and told the posters you are a preterist. They are very much in the dark. I doubt that any of them have ever heard of Preterism. And if and when they catch on they’ll think you’ve lost your marbles or it’s a bad joke or you’re part of the end time deception. It’s inevitable.
John, I understand your passion, but there’s a time and a place. And there’s a way of communicating that opens the ears and makes the heart receptive.
I agree with Canuckster when he replied on the forum:
“You make claims of Biblical standards for the elimination of mystery and assert them as true without providing anything but your claim. There certainly is a level of mystery that remains attached to the person of Christ and the Godhead. .. God is infinite. We are finite. We are limited in our capacity to completely understand this truth even though we accept it by faith.”
And ..
“The way I see it, Paul Young and the Shack are in good company. He's reaching those people who are hurting and need this type of vehicle to break through the religious phariseeism that is still alive and well in the Church today. I prefer to take my stand with him and the impact of that ministry than the spirit of aggrandized intellectualism that those seeking to break down that ministry are offering.”
In regard to what we believe as Christians the Lord Jesus Christ is central. He is Alpha and Omega, Beginning and Ending.
Preterism is not the hub of Christian belief. It is a spoke in the wheel. And if it is not properly positioned in relation to the centre it will fail in its purpose. The core of our faith if Jesus. And the Plan and Purpose of God in Jesus is Christology. And Christology has everything to do with relationship. Our relationship with God. Our relationship with each other. And our relationship to the Creation which is sustained every moment by the Word of Christ.
John, you are not seeing clearly.
<
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Tuesday, May 27 @ 11:03:29 PDT
- by gracescarredhands on Saturday, May 31 @ 08:16:31 PDT
- by Paige on Saturday, May 31 @ 10:48:14 PDT
- by gracescarredhands on Wednesday, June 11 @ 14:58:09 PDT
| 
|
