Monday, October 26, 2009

Where there is no vision....

Where there is no vision, the people perish:
but he that keeps the law, happy is he.

Proverbs 29:18

This is a favorite verse of those in the success-motivation field. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" — and that is where they end the quotation, divorcing it from the significant clause that follows. At any rate, the idea in their heads is that you have to have an idea of what you want, where you are going, and how you are going to get there. All that is true, but none of that is intended by the wise Preacher.

What the writer actually intends to tell us is that when the Word of God fails to be communicated through the mouths of his prophets, things are in a bad strait. It is the prophetic vision that is the subject of this verse, not some grandiose idea of success.

We have come to a day in which "there is no vision." Preachers preach everything but a word from the Lord. Some preach others sermons. Plagiarizing another's sermon and calling it a word from God? How ludicrous. To steal another's words or to steal his authorship and present it as coming from God through your heart? We need to hear a word from the Lord, not a word from Rick Warren.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." Some preach their own ideas. Some preach how-to sermons. Some even preach from magazines. Others resort to gimmicks like drama, dance, and puppet shows, none of which have been ordained by God. And so it is: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." We need to hear a word from the Lord. We are not interested in nor benefited by your ideas, Rick Warren's ideas, nor the Reader's Digest. We want to know what God is saying through you. We need to know what God is saying through you.

There is a connection between the two clauses of this verse. On the one hand people perish. On the other they find blessing. The connection is the Word of God. When the Word of God is clearly, boldly, and unabashedly preached from a heart that has been exercised by the Savior who has redeemed us, that same word then passes into the hearts of the hearers and becomes a tool for the Holy Spirit to use to work sanctifying change in us. As we obey that word we shall find ourselves happy, or blessed.

Too many believers sit under preachers who have not the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. They can conjugate verbs, parse and diagram sentences, and give the history of the text but do not know how to make it applicable to the man and women — and the children — in the pew.

Today, in these United States, we find ourselves living out the truth of this verse. There is no vision, and the people perish. There is little difference between the average professing Christian and the person who makes no claim of knowing Christ. The world has invaded and conquered the Church and we wring our hands and wonder what went wrong. Doctrine after doctrine has been watered down or ignored and our people no longer know what it is to be a Christian: and all because there is no vision, no word from God.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The Shack — A critique

The Shack, Wm. Paul Young, Windblown Media, Newbury Park, CA, 2007

Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, says: "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." That’s like comparing the Bible to Alice in Wonderland. The one is filled with truth, the other with error. One has stood the test of time, the other will not last ten years. Truth be told, The Shack is not that good.

"Bill, it's a work of fiction!" That was the response one gave to me when I presented him with some of my criticisms of The Shack. That objection has been repeated by others. "It's a fictitious novel and should be read purely for entertainment value. The author never intended it to become a 'bible study book' or anything of the sort," is another example.

Is that a legitimate objection?

I do not believe it is. One of those that objected to my criticism of The Shack has himself remonstrated against Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code. If criticism against the later is legitimate why is it not against the former? Dan Brown, as far as I know, does not push his book as truth; Willie Young does. He would have you believe that while it is a novel, that much of it is true. He states in his blog, Wind Rumors, that “Mack is mostly me” and “the conversations are very real and true.”

I also believe that criticism of The Shack is fair and appropriate because, even if there was a flat-out denial of it being a true-to-life real story, it portrays Christianity and Christianity’s God in ways that are supposed to make God more personal and understandable to people, along with making the Christian life more real and understandable, as well. However, I believe the author misses the mark so widely that this book will further confuse the many who are biblically illiterate and whose Christian beliefs are shallow.

Fiction that purports to be biblical and that portrays God, whether written by a Christian or an unbelieving author, must first and foremost be truthful. It is at this very level that The Shack falls short.

My first objection to Shack is the constant over-familiarity of referring to God as “Papa.” I suppose this usage is deduced from Romans 8:15. Modern preachers tell us that abba is the Aramaic word for “daddy.” Where they got that I do not know. Abba comes originally from the Chaldee and passed into Aramaic and means, “Father.”

While the Bible tells Christians that they may come before the throne of God boldly, it never tells us we can come to God as familiars. In fact, we must come on the merits of Jesus Christ. None of the apostles, who were much closer to Christ than any character in The Shack, were so impudent as to refer to the Father of our Lord as “Papa.”

My second objection to The Shack is its misrepresentation of God the Father. Mack, the main character in the story, has a run-in with God. He sees God in human form. What does God look like in The Shack? Aunt Jemima or, as it says in the words of the book, “he was looking directly into the face of a large, beaming African-American woman.” The Father is always referred to as “she.” This is horrendous, to say the least.

The Bible repeatedly tells us that God is not a man (and by extension, not a woman). The Bible also tells us that God is spirit and no man has seen God at any time. When God did decide to reveal himself to mankind, he did it through his Son, who is “the express image of his person.” Thick or thin, black or white, God cannot be represented by a woman, let alone any man other than Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, too, is portrayed as a woman. Her name is Sarayu. She is Asian.

Mack’s vocabulary leaves a little to be desired. A book written for a supposedly Christian audience should be careful to be without fault and to set a good example. As I read the book I was often surprised and dismayed by the earthy language used. One example should suffice. On page 177 of my paperback edition, Mack is engaged in talking to the Lord of Glory (an image of Jesus which is actually lacking in the book) when he says, “But why do we keep all that crap inside?” Crap is a euphemism for … well, you know what for. It’s use is beneath the dignity of a child of God and certainly would never be used by one knowing he was talking to the Son of Man. That it is commonly heard, even in the house of God, does not justify its use in the book. In another place, Mack uses “Geez” in conversation with the Holy Spirit. Geez is a corruption of Jesus and its use is a violation of taking the name of God in vain.

The book also contains theological errors. In one place (p. 194) God the Father says, “I am now fully reconciled to the world.” I do not find that concept taught in Scripture. What I do find is that God sent his Son into the world to reconcile the world to him (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jesus is quoted as saying, “…I have no desire to make them [Buddhists, Mormons, etc.] Christian.” I find that statement absurd, coming from one who supposedly writes from a Christian perspective.

One more error: The Holy Spirit says to Mack, “In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is stated by the apostle Paul twice, in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23. Willie Young’s use of it in this context wrests it from the context in which the apostle used it. In the first place all Christians are under some law. We are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ. We are not under the law of sin, but we are under the law of the Spirit of life. We are under the royal law, that which requires us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To say that we are not under any law is sheer foolishness.

My last complaint against the book is the attitude that Mack takes toward God in his great loss. Mack becomes bitter and withdrawn, condemns God and, in short, acts like a child robbed of his candy. Mack attacks and condemns God, doubts God, is angry with God. All of the emotions and thoughts that Mack expresses are those that you and I go through in similar circumstances. But they are thoughts, actions, and emotions condemned by God. How much better would it have been for The Shack to have pointed Mack to the book of Job where one suffers much more loss than what Mack did and responded without sinning. Alas, the author missed a great opportunity. The book finishes with Mack understanding more about God but never repenting of his self-centeredness and rebellion against God.

Greg Albright, editor of Plain Truth Magazine said, "William Young's insights are not just captivating, they are biblically faithful and true.” I think Mr. Albright, along with a lot of others, need to do more reading from the Bible. That is where the answers to situations like Mack’s are found. They certainly will not be found in The Shack.