I can hear the groans already. "Still Christmas?? No! Please! I'm sick of Christmas!! Pleeeease let it be over with already!"
But actually it is still Christmas. You've heard of the "12 days of Christmas"? It's more than just a song. On the church calendar Christmas actually does last through January 5. That's twelve days. Count 'em.
In the old days this season of the church year used to be called "Christmastide." Now I think they just call it the Season of Christmas.
The way we do Christmas in America contains a lot of irony. Technically, on the church calendar the Christmas season doesn't start until Dec. 25. In America, though, Christmas seems to start earlier and earlier every year. When I was a kid, people started thinking about and decorating for Christmas after Thanksgiving. This coincided pretty nicely with the church calendar, because the season of Advent, which is sort of the build up to Christmas, a season of preparation and anticipation, begins soon after the Thanksgiving holiday.
But nowadays it's not uncommon to begin seeing Christmas decorations in stores right after Halloween, if not before. (In a twist which almost seems indicative of two competing spiritual kingdoms, this past fall I heard that Halloween is the second most lucrative holiday of the year, behind Christmas.)
So by mid-November we're already being treated to Christmas decorations, advertisements for Christmas toys, and even maybe an occasional Christmas carol interspersed in the ever-ubiquitous muzak. After Thanksgiving all the stops are pulled out, bringing the modern American Christmas frenzy into full swing.
It's no wonder that this past Friday one of my colleagues at work was heard to say "I'm glad Christmas is over with. I'm sick of it."
I didn't listen to much Christmas music this year prior to the week of Christmas day. With two elderly relatives dying a couple weeks before and having spent the previous weeks waiting to hear of their fate, there just didn't seem to be much room or inclination in my heart to think about Christmas this year.
That changed, though, when I attended a wonderful musical rendition of Dickens' A Christmas Carol at the Clarence Brown Theatre here in Knoxville last Sunday. It made me realize I was becoming Scroooge-ish this year, and the delightful production helped revive the Christmas spirit for me.
So by Monday I was ready to hear some Christmas music. One of the local Christian radio stations devoted the entire month between Thanksgiving and Christmas to playing Christmas music, so carols weren't hard to find on the radio.
Due to my work schedule I wasn't able to be with family on Christmas day this year, but instead knew I wouldn't see them until this weekend (Dec. 26-28). So this year I was thankful to remember that Christmas lasts beyond the 25th. Therefore as I was driving to work on the morning of Dec. 26, I was ready to hear some more Christmas music.
To my dismay I clicked on the radio to discover that the channel which had been blaring non-stop Christmas music the day before, and for an entire month previously, was now suddenly back to their regular playlist again. Not a Christmas carol to be heard anywhere! All that build-up, and now they were moving on as if nothing important or special had happened at all! Almost as if they, like everyone else, were sick of Christmas, too, and just ready to get back to "normal life."
Bah humbug.
That's when it struck me how backwards we have this whole Christmas thing. The four weeks before Christmas Day are supposed to be Advent, a time of waiting and anticipation and preparation (namely to ready our hearts to celebrate Jesus, not to wear ourselves out getting all set for the grand Gift Exchange). That's supposed to be the build-up to Christmas. Then Christmas Day is supposed to be a day of joy and wonder at "what God hath wrought" in Jesus.
Instead, though, we've allowed it to become a time in which everyone works themselves silly buying presents, and wrapping gifts, and decorating trees and houses and yards, and staging parties (with one or more to attend every week, it seems), and...and...I'm out of breath. No wonder everyone's sick of Christmas by the time Dec. 26 rolls around.
Bah humbug.
But I think that's where the beauty and the pleasant surprise of Christmastide comes in, the fact that Christmas is a season and not just a day. Now that all the hustle and bustle is over, we can take a breather. Now we can take some time to actually reflect on the meaning of the holiday, because we rarely have time for that before the 25th.
I assume the Christian radio station quit playing Christmas carols on Dec. 26 out of ignorance. Sadly, even many of us in the church have lost touch with the rhythms and cadences of the church calendar. Being somewhat of a liturgical rebel myself I'll be the first one to say I don't think we should be legalistically bound to the church calendar. I think it adds freshness to our celebrations when we change things up from time to time and from year to year. This year it really helped me enjoy Christmas by not listening to or singing Christmas carols until a few days before the 25th.
But at the same time, when we've so completely lost sight of the fact that it's still Christmas, then maybe it's time to be reminded. To that Christian radio station, and to my friend at work, I want to say: "Not so fast. Let's allow it to be Christmas a little while longer. I'm really just starting to enjoy it now. Let's allow ourselves time to reflect on what Christmas really means."
After all, if we can get past all the busyness of Christmas and remember what it's really about, on some level wouldn't we like it to be Christmas all year 'round? We only get sick of Christmas if we lose sight of the real point. It's not about the tree or the presents or the parties or the snow we wish we had or the mistletoe or all the rushing here and there. It's about love and peace and goodwill and joy. Those are things I'd like to carry with me through the year.
I have a friend who grew up in a denomination that didn't observe the liturgical calendar. He discovered the church calendar late in life and has found it to be a great source of comfort and structure for his faith. This same friend makes a practice every year of wishing his friends "Merry Christmas" between December 25 and January 5. I think he's onto something there.
So to all my friends out there I want to wish you a very merry Christmas, as well as a blessed and prosperous new year. And I hope you'll take a little time between now and the 5th to continue to reflect on the meaning of this blessed season, when we remember that God became one of us in order to reconcile us to himself.
"...In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them." - 2 Cor 5:19 (RSV). In recent years that's become one of my favorite verses. It reminds me that God's disposition toward us is not to keep track of our sins, but to do away with them, so that we may be reconciled to him.
Merry Christmas.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Overcoming the Accuser
Rev 12:10-11
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death...."
(NIV)
Lately I've been thinking about that phrase "the accuser of our brothers"--actually "the accuser of our brethren" as it's more commonly quoted from the King James version.
Many evangelicals seem to love the King James. I didn't grow up in the evangelical church, so the whole King James thing passed me by. But this phrase is one of many that have stuck with me as I've often heard them quoted in evangelical circles. Of course "accuser of the brethren" refers to the adversary of God and of his people, most commonly known as Satan or the devil.
This idea has been on my mind lately because I've been seeing evidence of Satan's accusing activity in my own life. Of course, I'm most keenly aware of it when I feel wrongly accused. But then I have to stop and ask myself, when have I accused others unfairly?
In this blog I want to consider what it means to say that Satan--or as a friend likes to call him, "ol' what's-his-name"--is the accuser of the brethren.
Notice first he is the accuser "of the brothers." In Bible-speak that means the Christian community. It's significant to realize that the enemy is the accuser primarily of Christians, of believers in Christ. I'm fairly certain the devil accuses everyone when he gets the chance, but this verse indicates his primary target is believers.
In this world of ours you don't have to look far to see evidence of the devil's accusing activity. Daily Christians are being accused in the media, in books, in movies, on the news, at work, in songs on the radio. Pretty much anywhere you go you can hear Christians being accused of being hypocritical or judgmental or stupid. Certain atheists and other unbelievers accuse Christians of being a threat to society and to the well-being of the world. Some evolutionists have accused Christian proponents of creationism or intelligent design as threats to "truth" and our educational system. In countries such as North Korea, China, and various Muslim nations, Christians are accused of all kinds of illegal activities (including proselyting, which many of these countries have outlawed) and are persecuted, even arrested or killed, as a result.
Have you ever wondered why so many see Christians in this way? Could it be because our enemy is accusing us to the world?
Let me point out that in the context of the passage from Revelation, I'm not sure it matters whether Christians are guilty or innocent of the things they're being accused of. In fact, at times some of the accusations leveled against believers might be justified. Let me give a simple personal example: If someone were to accuse me of lust, envy, pride, anger, or selfishness (just to name a few), the accusations would likely be true. I've been guilty of all those things at one time or another. Likewise, some of the accusations that certain Christians are hypocritical or judgmental are true (to name another example).
But in the Revelation passage, the issue is not whether believers are guilty or not, the issue is that the enemy is accusing them. Constantly, it says--day and night. And, in fact, the implication is that Satan is accusing us of things of which we are guilty, for the passage describes him as accusing us "before God" day and night.
But notice also that it says how the believers overcame him:
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
These Christians overcame the accuser and his accusations "by the blood of the Lamb." Of course, this is a reference to Christ and his atoning death on the cross. As believers we don't depend on good works to save us or to make us right with God. We depend solely on Jesus' blood, which, as 1 John 1:7 says, "purifies us from all sin."
So in Revelation 12, the issue is not necessarily that the accusations of the devil against believers are not true, it's that Christians rely on the blood of Christ to cleanse us of any and all accusations which might or might not be true, so that the accusations have no power.
The image evoked by this passage is one of a courtroom. In a court of law, the prosecuting attorney is constantly accusing the defendant of whatever crimes it is he or she is being tried for. In this passage, Satan is the prosecuting attorney accusing us of our sins. However, Jesus' blood renders the accusations of the devil against us null and void. It's not necessarily that we didn't do what we were accused of, it's that Jesus' blood washes us clean of our guilt and causes the enemy's accusations to become meaningless. There is no longer any basis on which to accuse us, because Christ's blood has made us clean and whole.
In light of the courtroom image, the language in the passage about the "the word of their testimony" is seen in a new light as well. Of course, this refers first and foremost to our testimony about the mighty works of our victorious God on our behalf. It also refers to our personal testimony of what God has done in our lives.
But I wonder if there's not another dimension to it, too. Thinking about the ideas of accusation and testimony from the perspective of a courtroom, could "the word of their testimony" also refer to testimony like that of a witness who is sharing evidence in defense of another person? Could "the word of...testimony" by which believers overcome the accusations of the devil also be our testimonies on behalf of one another--testimonies that serve as reminders of what Christ has done on our behalf? I'm still pondering this, but in light of the courtroom image the terminology in this passage has caused me to consider it in a new light.
Now as I ponder this, I'm struck by the fact that many of us have this matter of accusation all backwards. We see God as the accuser. Many people imagine God sitting up in heaven waiting for us to screw up so he can have something new of which to accuse us. Some think God is just aching for a reason to send someone, anyone to hell. We see God as looking for an opportunity to punish us.
But that's not the picture of God presented in the Bible. Scripture says "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Cor 5:19, NIV). In another place it tells us that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world" (John 3:17, NIV). Salvation was God's idea. His purpose was not to accuse us or to condemn us, but to rescue us. His intention was to reconcile us to himself, to not count our sins against us. That's why he sent Jesus: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16-17, NIV).
Not only that, but God's purpose of rescuing us goes all the way back to the beginning of time. Consider the following verses:
Matt 25:34-35
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
NIV
Eph 1:3-4
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
NIV
1 Peter 1:18-21
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
NIV
God's purpose from the beginning was to save us, not to condemn us.
So why has God gotten such a bad rap? Why is God so often seen as the one who accuses us?
I think this also is the result of Satan's accusing work. Not only does the enemy accuse the children of God, but he also accuses God himself. This is one of the devil's most clever ploys: to turn the tables and accuse God of being the accuser of humanity, while in fact Satan himself is the one who actually fits that description. The enemy's scheme has been to try and make God look as bad as possible, accusing him of all sorts of horrible things. The enemy's reason for doing this is in order to prevent people from believing in God and turning to him to be saved.
And Satan's work of accusing God has been very successful. Listen to all the terrible things people accuse God of daily. I've heard and read more than one interview in which atheists have accused the God of the Bible of being petty and hateful and vengeful and violent and cruel. (By the way, I'm convinced that atheists don't really believe there is no God; in reality they are very angry with God and so the way they get back at him is by pretending he doesn't exist. But deep in their hearts, even the most committed atheists know there is a God. They just don't like him. But that's a topic for another blog.)
So anyway, my point is that we need to realize it's Satan who's the real accuser, and not God. God's purpose is to save. It is God's enemy whose goal is to hurt people.
As I pointed out earlier, evidence of the devil's accusing work is all around us in the world. The enemy accuses us to the unbelieving world and they do not recognize where these thoughts are coming from. Unbelievers daily accuse Christians of all manner of evil. And unfortunately, some of it is true, which just adds fuel to Satan's fire.
But it's not just to the unbelieving world that the devil accuses Christians. He also accuses us to one another. Indeed, some of the most sharp accusations against believers come from other Christians.
I believe Satan is having a field day using accusation in the church today. I can't remember a period in my own lifetime when Christians were so accusing in their statements about other believers as we often hear today. Could it be that the enemy is whispering accusations in our ears against other Christians, and we are not discerning it?
Now let me quickly admit that I've been guilty myself. I'm ashamed to admit that I've allowed accusing thoughts against other believers to dominate my thinking for years at a time. I've spoken many a critical word of individuals and groups in the church. I've accused some groups of being too liberal, and others of being pharisaical. I've accused some believers of not treating me the way I think I should be treated, and others of excluding me because I felt like I didn't belong. And I could go on. So I'm not meaning to just point the finger at others.
But I'm coming to believe that the effects of accusation within the body of Christ are devastating, and we're seeing the results today. Accusation manifests itself when denominations criticize and exclude each other because of differing beliefs. We see accusation at work when people who prefer contemporary worship can't abide with those who worship best in a more traditional setting, and vice versa. When Christians divide along racial lines or doctrinal lines, often accusation comes into play.
A lot of times, though, I think the accusations Christians level against each other are actually just petty. It's not uncommon to hear Christians accuse other Christians of being boring, or of fitting some negative stereotype. Believers accuse other believers of not dressing up enough for church, or of dressing up too much for church; of looking too evangelical or of not looking evangelical enough; of being too predictable or of not being predictable enough; of being too contemporary or too traditional; of going to a church that's too big or one that's too small; of being too conservative or too liberal, and on and on and on. Could it be that the source of all these accusations is Satan himself?
The church in our day is incredibly fragmented, and I believe it's because the accuser of the brethren has largely had his way with the us, and for the most part we've played right along without ever questioning it. The accuser has been accusing Christians to one another, and we have not discerned it. The devil has whispered "That church is too boring, you don't want to go there anymore" and Christians have been happy to comply. Or the whisper was "Those people don't really love you. They don't really care anything about you. Why hang around there anymore?" Or "That new hip church across town is where it's at. No need to stay at this one any longer." Or "The people in that church over there don't know Jesus like you do."
Sometimes the whispers are about individuals. "Don't you wish she didn't wear her hair in such an unattractive way...?" the enemy whispers into our unsuspecting ears. "He talks too much." "She's a colossal bore." "He's conceited." "She's too fat. If she really knew God she would take better care of herself." "He uses too much Christian lingo. That seems fake. You're more sincere than that." "Don't you wish she would get her act together?" "He's judgmental." "She's unspiritual." And the examples go on an on an on.
My observation is that some of Christians' harshest critics are other Christians. A common example is that some believers almost seem to scrutinize Christian art as if they expect it to be of very poor quality. Christians are accused most vehemently by other Christians of being the least talented group of people on the planet.
I have come to wonder how much shame plays a role in all this. I wonder if one reason Christians are so quick to criticize each other is that we've internalized a lot of the secular world's accusations against us, and this has tapped into our shame, which everyone on the planet has a healthy dose of due to the fall. Deep down we believe many of the accusations of the world against us, and so we join with the world in criticizing one another. But I think if we could strip away the veil we very well might see the accuser of the brethren at work behind all that shame and accusation.
I believe the church is so divided today in part because we haven't discerned the accuser when he's been whispering in our ears. As a result we've been unwitting victims of his plan, which is to divide us in whatever way he can, and pit us against each other. The devil's goal is to cause us to forget that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12, NIV). If he can get us fighting each other instead of him then he's won a major victory.
Now obviously, this doesn't mean we don't use discernment. This doesn't mean we ignore genuine problems in our relationships or in the body of Christ that need to be addressed. This doesn't mean we never call someone out when they need to be confronted. This doesn't mean we never distinguish between right and wrong or between good and evil.
But (obviously) there's a difference when the Spirit of God is at work versus when the devil is doing his accusing work. The conviction of the Holy Spirit brings peace, genuine repentance, and restoration. The accusations of the enemy bring strife, division, depression, and confusion. When the Holy Spirit leads us to confront someone, he always leads us to "speak the truth in love." The devil just accuses. When the Spirit of God is at work the body's built up and fortified. When we listen to the accuser, the body's injured and torn asunder.
I want to call on believers, including me, to be more aware of the accuser's work. When we start having negative thoughts towards each other, maybe that's the time to step back and consider where they're coming from. And I think one possible clue is, if the things about other believers that are bothering us are petty in nature, then that's probably not God at work. More likely it's someone else.
But perhaps the enemy's most devastating accusations against us occur when he accuses us to ourselves. "You're worthless," he says. "No one could or would want to love you. Not even God." The enemy's attacks in this way are so subtle that often we don't recognize them as coming from him. But he is accusing us to ourselves. It's imperative that we discern the enemy's assault on us in this way and declare to the enemy and to ourselves the truths of what God says about us in his Word.
A house divided against itself can't stand. The enemy has done a pretty able job of dividing us, against one another and against ourselves. Maybe it's time to stop listening to his accusations and to start telling "ol' what's-his-name" where he can go. It's time to recall what Christ has done for us on the cross and to claim the merits of his blood to overcome the accusations of the enemy. It's time for us to start bearing witness to the wonders of God in our lives, and to give testimony on one another's behalf, protesting each one's innocence before God and before a watching world. And if we love not our lives unto death, then the enemy can't use his weapons of fear, doubt, and shame against us.
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death...."
(NIV)
Lately I've been thinking about that phrase "the accuser of our brothers"--actually "the accuser of our brethren" as it's more commonly quoted from the King James version.
Many evangelicals seem to love the King James. I didn't grow up in the evangelical church, so the whole King James thing passed me by. But this phrase is one of many that have stuck with me as I've often heard them quoted in evangelical circles. Of course "accuser of the brethren" refers to the adversary of God and of his people, most commonly known as Satan or the devil.
This idea has been on my mind lately because I've been seeing evidence of Satan's accusing activity in my own life. Of course, I'm most keenly aware of it when I feel wrongly accused. But then I have to stop and ask myself, when have I accused others unfairly?
In this blog I want to consider what it means to say that Satan--or as a friend likes to call him, "ol' what's-his-name"--is the accuser of the brethren.
Notice first he is the accuser "of the brothers." In Bible-speak that means the Christian community. It's significant to realize that the enemy is the accuser primarily of Christians, of believers in Christ. I'm fairly certain the devil accuses everyone when he gets the chance, but this verse indicates his primary target is believers.
In this world of ours you don't have to look far to see evidence of the devil's accusing activity. Daily Christians are being accused in the media, in books, in movies, on the news, at work, in songs on the radio. Pretty much anywhere you go you can hear Christians being accused of being hypocritical or judgmental or stupid. Certain atheists and other unbelievers accuse Christians of being a threat to society and to the well-being of the world. Some evolutionists have accused Christian proponents of creationism or intelligent design as threats to "truth" and our educational system. In countries such as North Korea, China, and various Muslim nations, Christians are accused of all kinds of illegal activities (including proselyting, which many of these countries have outlawed) and are persecuted, even arrested or killed, as a result.
Have you ever wondered why so many see Christians in this way? Could it be because our enemy is accusing us to the world?
Let me point out that in the context of the passage from Revelation, I'm not sure it matters whether Christians are guilty or innocent of the things they're being accused of. In fact, at times some of the accusations leveled against believers might be justified. Let me give a simple personal example: If someone were to accuse me of lust, envy, pride, anger, or selfishness (just to name a few), the accusations would likely be true. I've been guilty of all those things at one time or another. Likewise, some of the accusations that certain Christians are hypocritical or judgmental are true (to name another example).
But in the Revelation passage, the issue is not whether believers are guilty or not, the issue is that the enemy is accusing them. Constantly, it says--day and night. And, in fact, the implication is that Satan is accusing us of things of which we are guilty, for the passage describes him as accusing us "before God" day and night.
But notice also that it says how the believers overcame him:
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
These Christians overcame the accuser and his accusations "by the blood of the Lamb." Of course, this is a reference to Christ and his atoning death on the cross. As believers we don't depend on good works to save us or to make us right with God. We depend solely on Jesus' blood, which, as 1 John 1:7 says, "purifies us from all sin."
So in Revelation 12, the issue is not necessarily that the accusations of the devil against believers are not true, it's that Christians rely on the blood of Christ to cleanse us of any and all accusations which might or might not be true, so that the accusations have no power.
The image evoked by this passage is one of a courtroom. In a court of law, the prosecuting attorney is constantly accusing the defendant of whatever crimes it is he or she is being tried for. In this passage, Satan is the prosecuting attorney accusing us of our sins. However, Jesus' blood renders the accusations of the devil against us null and void. It's not necessarily that we didn't do what we were accused of, it's that Jesus' blood washes us clean of our guilt and causes the enemy's accusations to become meaningless. There is no longer any basis on which to accuse us, because Christ's blood has made us clean and whole.
In light of the courtroom image, the language in the passage about the "the word of their testimony" is seen in a new light as well. Of course, this refers first and foremost to our testimony about the mighty works of our victorious God on our behalf. It also refers to our personal testimony of what God has done in our lives.
But I wonder if there's not another dimension to it, too. Thinking about the ideas of accusation and testimony from the perspective of a courtroom, could "the word of their testimony" also refer to testimony like that of a witness who is sharing evidence in defense of another person? Could "the word of...testimony" by which believers overcome the accusations of the devil also be our testimonies on behalf of one another--testimonies that serve as reminders of what Christ has done on our behalf? I'm still pondering this, but in light of the courtroom image the terminology in this passage has caused me to consider it in a new light.
Now as I ponder this, I'm struck by the fact that many of us have this matter of accusation all backwards. We see God as the accuser. Many people imagine God sitting up in heaven waiting for us to screw up so he can have something new of which to accuse us. Some think God is just aching for a reason to send someone, anyone to hell. We see God as looking for an opportunity to punish us.
But that's not the picture of God presented in the Bible. Scripture says "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Cor 5:19, NIV). In another place it tells us that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world" (John 3:17, NIV). Salvation was God's idea. His purpose was not to accuse us or to condemn us, but to rescue us. His intention was to reconcile us to himself, to not count our sins against us. That's why he sent Jesus: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16-17, NIV).
Not only that, but God's purpose of rescuing us goes all the way back to the beginning of time. Consider the following verses:
Matt 25:34-35
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
NIV
Eph 1:3-4
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
NIV
1 Peter 1:18-21
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
NIV
God's purpose from the beginning was to save us, not to condemn us.
So why has God gotten such a bad rap? Why is God so often seen as the one who accuses us?
I think this also is the result of Satan's accusing work. Not only does the enemy accuse the children of God, but he also accuses God himself. This is one of the devil's most clever ploys: to turn the tables and accuse God of being the accuser of humanity, while in fact Satan himself is the one who actually fits that description. The enemy's scheme has been to try and make God look as bad as possible, accusing him of all sorts of horrible things. The enemy's reason for doing this is in order to prevent people from believing in God and turning to him to be saved.
And Satan's work of accusing God has been very successful. Listen to all the terrible things people accuse God of daily. I've heard and read more than one interview in which atheists have accused the God of the Bible of being petty and hateful and vengeful and violent and cruel. (By the way, I'm convinced that atheists don't really believe there is no God; in reality they are very angry with God and so the way they get back at him is by pretending he doesn't exist. But deep in their hearts, even the most committed atheists know there is a God. They just don't like him. But that's a topic for another blog.)
So anyway, my point is that we need to realize it's Satan who's the real accuser, and not God. God's purpose is to save. It is God's enemy whose goal is to hurt people.
As I pointed out earlier, evidence of the devil's accusing work is all around us in the world. The enemy accuses us to the unbelieving world and they do not recognize where these thoughts are coming from. Unbelievers daily accuse Christians of all manner of evil. And unfortunately, some of it is true, which just adds fuel to Satan's fire.
But it's not just to the unbelieving world that the devil accuses Christians. He also accuses us to one another. Indeed, some of the most sharp accusations against believers come from other Christians.
I believe Satan is having a field day using accusation in the church today. I can't remember a period in my own lifetime when Christians were so accusing in their statements about other believers as we often hear today. Could it be that the enemy is whispering accusations in our ears against other Christians, and we are not discerning it?
Now let me quickly admit that I've been guilty myself. I'm ashamed to admit that I've allowed accusing thoughts against other believers to dominate my thinking for years at a time. I've spoken many a critical word of individuals and groups in the church. I've accused some groups of being too liberal, and others of being pharisaical. I've accused some believers of not treating me the way I think I should be treated, and others of excluding me because I felt like I didn't belong. And I could go on. So I'm not meaning to just point the finger at others.
But I'm coming to believe that the effects of accusation within the body of Christ are devastating, and we're seeing the results today. Accusation manifests itself when denominations criticize and exclude each other because of differing beliefs. We see accusation at work when people who prefer contemporary worship can't abide with those who worship best in a more traditional setting, and vice versa. When Christians divide along racial lines or doctrinal lines, often accusation comes into play.
A lot of times, though, I think the accusations Christians level against each other are actually just petty. It's not uncommon to hear Christians accuse other Christians of being boring, or of fitting some negative stereotype. Believers accuse other believers of not dressing up enough for church, or of dressing up too much for church; of looking too evangelical or of not looking evangelical enough; of being too predictable or of not being predictable enough; of being too contemporary or too traditional; of going to a church that's too big or one that's too small; of being too conservative or too liberal, and on and on and on. Could it be that the source of all these accusations is Satan himself?
The church in our day is incredibly fragmented, and I believe it's because the accuser of the brethren has largely had his way with the us, and for the most part we've played right along without ever questioning it. The accuser has been accusing Christians to one another, and we have not discerned it. The devil has whispered "That church is too boring, you don't want to go there anymore" and Christians have been happy to comply. Or the whisper was "Those people don't really love you. They don't really care anything about you. Why hang around there anymore?" Or "That new hip church across town is where it's at. No need to stay at this one any longer." Or "The people in that church over there don't know Jesus like you do."
Sometimes the whispers are about individuals. "Don't you wish she didn't wear her hair in such an unattractive way...?" the enemy whispers into our unsuspecting ears. "He talks too much." "She's a colossal bore." "He's conceited." "She's too fat. If she really knew God she would take better care of herself." "He uses too much Christian lingo. That seems fake. You're more sincere than that." "Don't you wish she would get her act together?" "He's judgmental." "She's unspiritual." And the examples go on an on an on.
My observation is that some of Christians' harshest critics are other Christians. A common example is that some believers almost seem to scrutinize Christian art as if they expect it to be of very poor quality. Christians are accused most vehemently by other Christians of being the least talented group of people on the planet.
I have come to wonder how much shame plays a role in all this. I wonder if one reason Christians are so quick to criticize each other is that we've internalized a lot of the secular world's accusations against us, and this has tapped into our shame, which everyone on the planet has a healthy dose of due to the fall. Deep down we believe many of the accusations of the world against us, and so we join with the world in criticizing one another. But I think if we could strip away the veil we very well might see the accuser of the brethren at work behind all that shame and accusation.
I believe the church is so divided today in part because we haven't discerned the accuser when he's been whispering in our ears. As a result we've been unwitting victims of his plan, which is to divide us in whatever way he can, and pit us against each other. The devil's goal is to cause us to forget that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12, NIV). If he can get us fighting each other instead of him then he's won a major victory.
Now obviously, this doesn't mean we don't use discernment. This doesn't mean we ignore genuine problems in our relationships or in the body of Christ that need to be addressed. This doesn't mean we never call someone out when they need to be confronted. This doesn't mean we never distinguish between right and wrong or between good and evil.
But (obviously) there's a difference when the Spirit of God is at work versus when the devil is doing his accusing work. The conviction of the Holy Spirit brings peace, genuine repentance, and restoration. The accusations of the enemy bring strife, division, depression, and confusion. When the Holy Spirit leads us to confront someone, he always leads us to "speak the truth in love." The devil just accuses. When the Spirit of God is at work the body's built up and fortified. When we listen to the accuser, the body's injured and torn asunder.
I want to call on believers, including me, to be more aware of the accuser's work. When we start having negative thoughts towards each other, maybe that's the time to step back and consider where they're coming from. And I think one possible clue is, if the things about other believers that are bothering us are petty in nature, then that's probably not God at work. More likely it's someone else.
But perhaps the enemy's most devastating accusations against us occur when he accuses us to ourselves. "You're worthless," he says. "No one could or would want to love you. Not even God." The enemy's attacks in this way are so subtle that often we don't recognize them as coming from him. But he is accusing us to ourselves. It's imperative that we discern the enemy's assault on us in this way and declare to the enemy and to ourselves the truths of what God says about us in his Word.
A house divided against itself can't stand. The enemy has done a pretty able job of dividing us, against one another and against ourselves. Maybe it's time to stop listening to his accusations and to start telling "ol' what's-his-name" where he can go. It's time to recall what Christ has done for us on the cross and to claim the merits of his blood to overcome the accusations of the enemy. It's time for us to start bearing witness to the wonders of God in our lives, and to give testimony on one another's behalf, protesting each one's innocence before God and before a watching world. And if we love not our lives unto death, then the enemy can't use his weapons of fear, doubt, and shame against us.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
"It's the Ideology, Stupid!"
The Psychology of the 2008 Election
With the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, the true nature of politics in 21st century America is being revealed. Curious things are happening in the wake of this decision.
Liberals in the Demo Party and the media immediately responded to Palin's selection by asking incredulously, "How will she have time to raise her kids if she becomes the Vice President??" Can you imagine them ever asking that about a woman nominated by their own party? The Democrats are the party of Feminism and the N.O.W. Under normal circumstances they would never imply that a woman's place is in the home raising her children. Yet suddenly now with Palin they are sounding almost, well, downright conservative.
When Palin and the Republicans came forward with the information that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock--which they did voluntarily, by the way--the liberal media and members of the Democratic Party (minus Barack Obama, I must admit) immediately jumped on it as supposed evidence that Palin is not a suitable candidate for the socially conservative Republican Party. They expected Republicans, and especially evangelical Christians, to respond in horror and turn against McCain (they could only wish for this outcome in their fondest dreams). To their surprise, though, conservative voters have, in almost liberal fashion, rallied behind Palin and been very quick to forgive. And after hearing her speech at last night's RNC meeting, they're now ready to jump on board with her as McCain's running mate.
It's very interesting--Democrats expressing concern over a woman allowing the duties of high office to distract her from her motherly responsibilities, and being shocked that the woman's daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, while Republicans hail the woman as a new heroine for the party and wink at her daughter's moral indiscretion. These are interesting times indeed.
What this odd juxtaposition of events reveals is how much ideology drives the perceptions of political candidates in America. If a particular candidate holds the same worldview and beliefs as you do, you're much more likely to excuse their behavior. Likewise, any candidate whose views oppose our own we are likely to scrutinize carefully for any failing or foible which might be used to criticize them.
Republicans will look for anything they can find to de-legitimize a Democratic candidate, and Democrats do the same with Republicans. For example, consider the age and experience of the candidates on both sides in this election:
Republicans criticize Barack Obama for being too young and inexperienced, yet Sarah Palin is almost the same age as Obama and has about the same or less years of political experience. Nevertheless, Republicans laud her as the new young hope for the Republican future. Likewise, Republicans trumpet John McCain's many years of experience on Capitol hill while at the same time criticizing Joe Biden--who is younger than McCain--of being just another "old" Washington insider.
Lest we think this is just a Republican trait, we can readily see that the Democrats are doing the same thing. They promote Obama as the new voice of "change" and "hope" while saying Sarah Palin--again, about the same age--is too wet behind the ears, even though she has more executive experience than Obama. In a similar way the Dems hail the experience Biden brings to their ticket while making fun of McCain's age.
It's all so hypocritical, on both sides. So what's really driving all this? Ideology. Worldview.
The two parties represent opposing ideologies which, judging by polls and the results of previous elections, are held by roughly equal portions of the electorate. One of these worldviews, that held by the Democrats, typifies everything the 1960s cultural revolution stood for: So-called sexual freedom, pacifism, feminism, civil rights, and now also gay rights. Along with this is the assumption that the government is responsible for fixing poverty and social inequalities.
The worldview held by the other half of the electorate, represented by the Republican party, in many ways represents a desire to recover aspects of American society that were changed by the 1960s. This group longs for a return to old-fashioned values with regard to sex, religion, and personal morality. This group also favors free market capitalism and believes government involvement in economic and social issues should be minimal.
These two sets of American values are in direct opposition to one another. It's a situation in which, if one set of values is allowed to take hold, the other set is rendered null and void. For example, the Democrats (by and large) favor abortion rights and gay marriage, while the Republicans (for the most part) are against abortion on demand and are strong proponents of traditional marriage.
These two sets of values are in such strong opposition, and are the kinds of things people feel so strongly about, that it promotes an "end-justifies-the-means" kind of mentality in American politics. Thus you have Democrats, who would normally be thrilled at the prospect of a woman in high office, chilled by Sarah Palin, because she's not the right kind of woman--she's a woman who doesn't share their ideology. This goes to show that for Democrats it's more important that their overall ideology be supported than that a woman be elected. This is why Palin makes them so mad, by the way--because her presence forces them to make a choice they'd rather avoid--between their ideology and the chance to accomplish one small part of their platform: to have a woman in office.
Lest we think it's only Democrats who display this kind of hypocrisy, though, we can be assured Republicans do it, too. The way Republicans have been so willing to forgive Palin's daughter's indiscretion shows this. Not that they shouldn't be understanding about it. But can you imagine how Republicans would respond, and especially conservative Christians, if a similar revelation came out about a Democratic candidate? They'd likely pounce on it faster than a boa on a rat, and be making all kinds of complaints about how someone like that isn't fit for office. In truth, conservatives who were very hard on the Clintons (and rightly so, in my opinion) have been much more willing to look the other way when it has come to questions about the actions of the current administration.
I personally can't understand why many people in this country are so willing to let traditional marriage between a man and a woman go the way of the dodo bird. But there are many who seem to want that--or else have succumbed to peer pressure and allowed themselves to be bullied into it. But for those who hold to this position, they will go to any lengths to try to insure that a candidate who holds their values is elected.
By the same token, those who prefer the government to stay out of regulating big business have an equally strong stake invested (no pun intended) in electing a candidate who will allow their practices to continue unchecked. So they are equally motivated to promote a candidate who will support their values.
These are just two examples. But the point is that both sides see the stakes as being very high, and are motivated by this to use whatever means necessary to get elected, even if it requires a little hypocrisy here and there. Such, I guess, is the nature of politics.
And, I must confess that I'm just as guilty as anyone else. For me, a candidate's views on issues of personal morality are of paramount importance when considering a candidate. Even though I sympathize with the Democrats on certain issues, it's ultimately where the candidates stand on moral issues that will determine how I vote. In this case, even though McCain is more liberal than I would like, Obama is far more liberal. Overall I think McCain is much closer to my values than Obama is, and so I will probably reluctantly cast my vote for McCain. I do admire him for his war service and his long career of integrity in the Senate. Even so, though, I am choosing to wink at a few things, because I feel that electing McCain will promote my values and beliefs much better than a vote for Obama would.
That's my 2 cents on the coming election. And if I'm not mistaken, for most American voters, the candidate they choose in November will be determined by how well that candidate seems to represent their personal values, regardless of whether that candidate has been entirely consistent in his actions.....
With the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, the true nature of politics in 21st century America is being revealed. Curious things are happening in the wake of this decision.
Liberals in the Demo Party and the media immediately responded to Palin's selection by asking incredulously, "How will she have time to raise her kids if she becomes the Vice President??" Can you imagine them ever asking that about a woman nominated by their own party? The Democrats are the party of Feminism and the N.O.W. Under normal circumstances they would never imply that a woman's place is in the home raising her children. Yet suddenly now with Palin they are sounding almost, well, downright conservative.
When Palin and the Republicans came forward with the information that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock--which they did voluntarily, by the way--the liberal media and members of the Democratic Party (minus Barack Obama, I must admit) immediately jumped on it as supposed evidence that Palin is not a suitable candidate for the socially conservative Republican Party. They expected Republicans, and especially evangelical Christians, to respond in horror and turn against McCain (they could only wish for this outcome in their fondest dreams). To their surprise, though, conservative voters have, in almost liberal fashion, rallied behind Palin and been very quick to forgive. And after hearing her speech at last night's RNC meeting, they're now ready to jump on board with her as McCain's running mate.
It's very interesting--Democrats expressing concern over a woman allowing the duties of high office to distract her from her motherly responsibilities, and being shocked that the woman's daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, while Republicans hail the woman as a new heroine for the party and wink at her daughter's moral indiscretion. These are interesting times indeed.
What this odd juxtaposition of events reveals is how much ideology drives the perceptions of political candidates in America. If a particular candidate holds the same worldview and beliefs as you do, you're much more likely to excuse their behavior. Likewise, any candidate whose views oppose our own we are likely to scrutinize carefully for any failing or foible which might be used to criticize them.
Republicans will look for anything they can find to de-legitimize a Democratic candidate, and Democrats do the same with Republicans. For example, consider the age and experience of the candidates on both sides in this election:
Republicans criticize Barack Obama for being too young and inexperienced, yet Sarah Palin is almost the same age as Obama and has about the same or less years of political experience. Nevertheless, Republicans laud her as the new young hope for the Republican future. Likewise, Republicans trumpet John McCain's many years of experience on Capitol hill while at the same time criticizing Joe Biden--who is younger than McCain--of being just another "old" Washington insider.
Lest we think this is just a Republican trait, we can readily see that the Democrats are doing the same thing. They promote Obama as the new voice of "change" and "hope" while saying Sarah Palin--again, about the same age--is too wet behind the ears, even though she has more executive experience than Obama. In a similar way the Dems hail the experience Biden brings to their ticket while making fun of McCain's age.
It's all so hypocritical, on both sides. So what's really driving all this? Ideology. Worldview.
The two parties represent opposing ideologies which, judging by polls and the results of previous elections, are held by roughly equal portions of the electorate. One of these worldviews, that held by the Democrats, typifies everything the 1960s cultural revolution stood for: So-called sexual freedom, pacifism, feminism, civil rights, and now also gay rights. Along with this is the assumption that the government is responsible for fixing poverty and social inequalities.
The worldview held by the other half of the electorate, represented by the Republican party, in many ways represents a desire to recover aspects of American society that were changed by the 1960s. This group longs for a return to old-fashioned values with regard to sex, religion, and personal morality. This group also favors free market capitalism and believes government involvement in economic and social issues should be minimal.
These two sets of American values are in direct opposition to one another. It's a situation in which, if one set of values is allowed to take hold, the other set is rendered null and void. For example, the Democrats (by and large) favor abortion rights and gay marriage, while the Republicans (for the most part) are against abortion on demand and are strong proponents of traditional marriage.
These two sets of values are in such strong opposition, and are the kinds of things people feel so strongly about, that it promotes an "end-justifies-the-means" kind of mentality in American politics. Thus you have Democrats, who would normally be thrilled at the prospect of a woman in high office, chilled by Sarah Palin, because she's not the right kind of woman--she's a woman who doesn't share their ideology. This goes to show that for Democrats it's more important that their overall ideology be supported than that a woman be elected. This is why Palin makes them so mad, by the way--because her presence forces them to make a choice they'd rather avoid--between their ideology and the chance to accomplish one small part of their platform: to have a woman in office.
Lest we think it's only Democrats who display this kind of hypocrisy, though, we can be assured Republicans do it, too. The way Republicans have been so willing to forgive Palin's daughter's indiscretion shows this. Not that they shouldn't be understanding about it. But can you imagine how Republicans would respond, and especially conservative Christians, if a similar revelation came out about a Democratic candidate? They'd likely pounce on it faster than a boa on a rat, and be making all kinds of complaints about how someone like that isn't fit for office. In truth, conservatives who were very hard on the Clintons (and rightly so, in my opinion) have been much more willing to look the other way when it has come to questions about the actions of the current administration.
I personally can't understand why many people in this country are so willing to let traditional marriage between a man and a woman go the way of the dodo bird. But there are many who seem to want that--or else have succumbed to peer pressure and allowed themselves to be bullied into it. But for those who hold to this position, they will go to any lengths to try to insure that a candidate who holds their values is elected.
By the same token, those who prefer the government to stay out of regulating big business have an equally strong stake invested (no pun intended) in electing a candidate who will allow their practices to continue unchecked. So they are equally motivated to promote a candidate who will support their values.
These are just two examples. But the point is that both sides see the stakes as being very high, and are motivated by this to use whatever means necessary to get elected, even if it requires a little hypocrisy here and there. Such, I guess, is the nature of politics.
And, I must confess that I'm just as guilty as anyone else. For me, a candidate's views on issues of personal morality are of paramount importance when considering a candidate. Even though I sympathize with the Democrats on certain issues, it's ultimately where the candidates stand on moral issues that will determine how I vote. In this case, even though McCain is more liberal than I would like, Obama is far more liberal. Overall I think McCain is much closer to my values than Obama is, and so I will probably reluctantly cast my vote for McCain. I do admire him for his war service and his long career of integrity in the Senate. Even so, though, I am choosing to wink at a few things, because I feel that electing McCain will promote my values and beliefs much better than a vote for Obama would.
That's my 2 cents on the coming election. And if I'm not mistaken, for most American voters, the candidate they choose in November will be determined by how well that candidate seems to represent their personal values, regardless of whether that candidate has been entirely consistent in his actions.....
Friday, August 22, 2008
Reflections on "The Shack"
As is typical of The Shack from what I’ve heard, I read the book this past spring after being given a copy by a friend. The novel was already rising in popularity, and I read it partly just to see what all the buzz was about.
By now I’m told The Shack has sold over a million copies. An internet search reveals that responses to this fictional story have run the gamut, from unqualified praise to scathing critique. Of course, this varied reaction is because its presentation of God is a little unorthodox—which is precisely why some people have loved the story, and others have viewed it with suspicion.
Spoiler Alert: I’m going to discuss details of the story that will give away key elements of the plot, so if you intend to read it and don’t want the story line to be spoiled for you, then you might not want to read further. My thoughts are intended mainly for those who’ve read the book, though others may find them helpful if they are curious.
My response to The Shack was mixed. Certain parts of the story really touched me emotionally. Other aspects either left me a bit cold or raised questions about the book’s true value and the long term impact it will have.
First I’ll share the parts of the story that impacted me positively. Next I’ll share those I found to be more questionable.
The Restoration of All Things
Like most, I found the plot that frames the story gripping and heart-wrenching. Missy, the little daughter of the story’s main character, Mack, is kidnapped by a serial killer and meets a most horrific end. The book is about how God ministers to Mack in the aftermath of this terrible nightmare that no parent would ever want to face. The story becomes a vehicle, then, for offering a fresh perspective on humanity’s perennial question: If God is all powerful and completely good, why do unspeakable things happen in this world of his?
There were two scenes in the book that touched me deeply. One occurs in chapter 11 when Mack is in the cave with Sophia (“wisdom,” of course), and he gets to see Missy again, as she is in eternity. The moment is bittersweet because he cannot touch her or hold her or talk to her; he only gets to see her and hear her tell him she’s okay and that she loves him. But the message is conveyed clearly and powerfully on an intuitive level that all wrongs in this life will be righted in the life to come, and that all pains and sorrows will give way to eternal and everlasting joy. For me it was the most powerful moment in the entire story.
The other part of the book that really moved me was toward the end when one evening Mackenzie is allowed to see with spiritual eyes, to witness the glory of all living things, including a heavenly gathering of saints who have gone before. These Mack perceives as beings of pure light. His attention is drawn to one light-being in particular who is radiating a corona, if you will, of various hues of brilliant colored light. Mack is told by Sarayu (the character in the story who is supposed to represent the Holy Spirit) that one of the beings there is “having some difficulty keeping in what he is feeling.” Mack discovers that this particular light being is his father, who severely abused Mack as a boy, to which Mack responded at the time by putting poison in all his bottles of whisky and then running away from home. This scene is full of impact as father and son are reunited in a profound and emotional encounter. The question of whether Mack’s horribly abusive father was a believer is not addressed, but once again the message comes through that even the most horrible events of this life, even the most painful of relationships, will be redeemed and restored in the end. This scene for me certainly evoked my own longing that this would indeed be true, that at the end of all things that which has never been healed in this life will finally be satisfied one day.
There were other aspects of the novel, though, that did not sit with me so well, and which left me with questions and concerns. I will share these as well.
No Devil in the Details
First, it struck me as odd that a book whose purpose is to address the problem of evil makes absolutely no reference to spiritual warfare or to the presence of satan, a spiritual presence in the world that seeks to oppose God and all that is holy and good, and to seek vengeance against God by bringing tragedy on his creatures. In my view this is the book’s most glaring omission. It leaves out a key aspect of Christian teaching that, in my opinion, helps to explain the presence of evil in a world governed by a sovereign and good God.
God Is Oprah??
A second issue I had with the book was that I felt it played right into the ideological excesses of contemporary culture. Our culture and the American church are very feminized. In The Shack three of the four main characters who are supposed to represent God for most of the book are female. No wonder the book is so appealing to modern sensibilities! Isn’t this exactly what 21st century
Up until Mack encounters God at the shack I found the book remarkably gripping and realistic. Paul Young, the author, had me asking, How is he going to resolve this? But when Mack returns to the shack and suddenly everything is transformed and beautiful, and Mack is greeted at the door by the female God-character “Papa,” I had to struggle to retain my interest in the story. “Papa” is a large, almost stereotypical older black woman. My response was, honestly, “Oh my gosh—God as Oprah!! No wonder this book is so popular! This is exactly what millions of Americans would love for God to be like!”
But is God presented as Oprah what we really need? Honestly it seemed rather trite to me….
As the story unfolds, the Holy Spirit is portrayed also as a woman—a very feminine, very savvy Asian woman—named Sarayu (which is, incidentally, Sanskrit for “wind” or “air”). And then when Mack later encounters the character who is supposed to represent wisdom as personified in the book of Proverbs, she is, of course, also a woman, aptly named Sophia (Greek for "wisdom"). For most of the book the only male character representing God is Jesus, who is portrayed as a hip young Middle Eastern man.
Quite honestly, as I read the story, with all its feminine representations of God, I felt kind of like a guest on an episode of the TV show “The View”—you know, that popular trendy morning talk show hosted by Barbara Walters and three other women. I shook my head and again thought to myself: No wonder this book is so popular!
Not So “Novel” After All…
This presentation of God in feminine form might be novel for some (no pun intended), but it was not new for me. At the seminary I attended in the 1980s, feminist students and teachers were all the time wanting to portray God in terms other than male or masculine. Seeing God the Father and the Holy Spirit portrayed in this book as women reminded me of many a tiresome chapel service at
In the book, author Paul Young has “Papa,” the God-as-a-black-woman character, explain that he chose to appear to Mack in this form because his relationship with his father was so bad. This is the very same argument the feminists at Princeton Seminary used to justify their insistence that God never be referred to as “Father” or “He” because it might be offensive to those who had a bad relationship with their father. I saw entire denominations overtaken by this assertion that we can no longer call God “Father” or “He” out of consideration for those who were abused by their fathers….
The character Sophia reminded me of the “Reimagining God” conference a number of feminist theologians sponsored for all the mainline denominations back in 1993, in which God was invoked as the “goddess” Sophia and the elements used in their “communion” service were milk and honey rather than bread and wine. The milk and the honey were each intended to represent aspects of womanhood, and I’ll just leave it at that.
I have experienced firsthand the errors and heresies that can occur when the Fatherhood of God is replaced with feminine images. So the portrayal of God through a majority of female characters in this book was not a source of comfort or help to me. I could go further in my critique of Young’s portrayal of the Holy Spirit as a female character, but I won’t.
Is This What We Really Need?
But my biggest question about all this is: Sure, a softer, more feminine portrayal of God is more palatable in this day and age, but is it really what we need? Isn’t what we really need a picture of God in masculine terms that’s more accessible? We’ve associated God the Father with the “otherness” and transcendence of God. In essence we’ve allowed ourselves to be backed into a corner by the claim that a masculine portrayal of God must represent only his transcendence, and so if we want a more immanent view of God (that is, God among us and with us), we must use a feminine portrayal.
But I contend that the real problem is not with the idea of a masculine God, but with our understanding and view of masculinity. I think Young would have served us better if he had worked to rehabilitate our view of God using a male character. By reverting to a female personification of God, Young has essentially surrendered to our culture’s prevailing view that masculinity itself is the problem. Indeed, at one point in the book “Papa” herself says “Men! Such idiots sometimes!” And every 21st century woman reading the book (and not a few men I suspect) respond with a hearty “Amen!” No wonder the book is so popular! It parrots the very view of men and masculinity we’re subjected to every night on TV. Please! If I want that I’ll just watch television.
“PC”--More Than Just An IBM Computer….
With the presence of a female Asian character, a female African American character, and a Middle Eastern man, the book also plays to out culture’s current emphasis on multi-culturalism. In other words, The Shack is just so pleasantly “PC”—Politically Correct. Again—no wonder the book is so popular. Even Sarayu’s Sanskrit name and her Asian ethnicity seem like nods to the popularity of Eastern religion in our day. All this goes right along with the culture’s views on how the world ought to be. Not that there’s anything wrong with these characters being non-white. It just seems like such a blatant parlay to the spirit of our age…..
Don’t Put Your Hierarchy On Me
Another way in which this book plays to our culture is in its view of hierarchy and authority. The age we live in is very anti-authority and opposed to any form of hierarchy. The God characters in the book make strong statements that the concept of hierarchical authority relationships did not originate with God but are a product of the fallen world we live in. Young even goes so far as to say that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, that all the Persons of the Trinity relate to one another in attitudes of mutual submission.
I may be wrong, but I can’t think of a single passage of Scripture anywhere in the Bible that describes or refers to God the Father as subjecting himself to either the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son subjects Himself to the Father, and the Spirit subjects himself to the Father and the Son. But if there are any passages in which the Father subjects himself to the Son or the Spirit I am not aware of them. (In his forthcoming book “
If I am correct that Young is in error in this presentation of relationships within the Trinity, then this may be one of the gravest errors in the book. Is Young opening our eyes to a new truth in Scripture and a way in which the church has been in error, lo these many centuries? Or is he merely capitulating to the spirit of the age and furthering the rebellion against all forms of authority which so permeates our time?
Help or Hindrance?
Another concern I have about this book is the way in which it is being received by non-believers. The other day on the internet I read a response to it by a woman who said she had always avoided becoming a Christian because she couldn’t accept that a loving God would require people to believe in just one way—in Christ—in order to be saved. She said that reading The Shack had given her hope that maybe God is more the way she would like God to be.
If The Shack is introducing people to the true God and inviting people into saving relationship with Jesus Christ, then that’s a great thing. But if this book is merely encouraging us to make God in our own image, then it is doing serious damage to the cause of Christ, because it may cause people to believe they have no need of Christ in order to be saved. That would be a very tragic outcome, indeed.
I have not even said anything about the fact that by implication the book seems to leave open the question of whether people outside of Christ will be saved, and whether there will be any eternal retribution for the unrepentant.
Inspect the Fruit
Obviously, this book has become very popular. But the popularity of something doesn’t necessarily mean it is right or wrong. The Purpose Driven Life and Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life Now have each sold millions of copies, and yet both books have their fans as well as their detractors in the church. So popularity doesn’t really mean that much. Jesus said we would know his followers by the fruit produced in and through their lives.
This weekend I will get to hear the author in person. I'm interested to see what he and the meetings will be like.
At any rate, I guess time with tell the real story of The Shack. In time we will see whether it has really brought people closer to Christ, or if it just turns out to be another fad that has made its way through the evangelical church. If The Shack is just a fad, hopefully the damage left in its wake won’t be irreparable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)