"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.....

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 21^st century America wants in the divine: a kinder, gentler, more feminine God? This may be what we want, but is it really what we need—a more feminized portrait of God?

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 Princeton in which God was invoked as “Father/Mother God” or “Our Heavenly Mother.” So this was nothing new for me, it was just a tad wearisome. It was all too familiar, and not a pleasant association either….

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 21^st 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 “Reimagining Church,” house church guru Frank Viola claims to demonstrate from Scripture that hierarchical relationships did not originate with God. I am interested to see what he has to say and whether his argument holds water.)

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.