As part of the facebook world I am privy to the random thoughts and life updates of over 400 of my closest friends. This morning, I saw a video posted of a young man reciting a poem with the title, “I’m a Christian and I’m sorry”.
I listened to it, and I must say that as shocking as it was to hear the f-bomb twice, I was more shocked at hearing the same Christian bashing lines of thought that you hear anywhere else.
You can find the video on youtube, but I transcribed (as best as I could) the words of the poem so that I could better interact with it (transcript is below). I felt compelled to respond, so I have written this post (not even close to poetry) called, “I’m a Christian, and I’m not sorry” and it is below the transcript the poem.
I am a Christian.
I’m sorry
I’m sorry for the way that I come across
So fair and fake friendly and full on my self so judging your spiritual health by the words that you say and the way that you dress and the things that you do
Or maybe just judging you
I’m sorry for the way I live my life.
So confident of my own beliefs that I would never think to think about thinking about yours
I’m sorry for the wars
Iron clad crusaders mounting steeds and drawing swords with such spirit but the spirit…
[something about the spirit being out and the sword of the spirit was the word]
…but the word was with God and the word was God and they preached this as they marched on the holy land.
Singing and praying
And killing and slaying.
And preaching and healing
And raping and stealing.
It’s ironic that they lined their pockets in the name of God
Just like the priests who lined their pockets in the name of God.
Just like the people you can’t stand because they always raise their hand and spread their faith and hate and judgment in the name of God.
I’m sorry that I take the name of God in vain – or rather I’m sorry that I stain the name of God. Defending my selfish actions and selfless actions pertaining to the will of God.
I’m sorry for being intolerant.
For trying to talk down to you, for trying to talk over you, for not letting you talk.
I’m sorry for not walking the walk. For being a hypocritical critical Christian. Criticizing your lifestyle while my own lifestyle styles itself like the televangelist’s hair. All slick and sly and slippery…(something about a syllable sliding into your ear)…but that’s my greatest fear.
That the steps I take won’t match the words I speak so when I speak all you hear of me is a weak hypocritical critical Christian. Doing one thing and saying another. Loving my friend but hating my brother – it’s a show.
I’m sorry I get drunk on Saturday’s and go to church on Sunday’s to pray for my friends who get drunk on Saturday’s.
And on that note I’m sorry for making the church about the pews and the cross and the steeple, because the building is not the church; the church is the people.
I’m sorry that I hate you because you are gay.
I’m sorry I condemn you to hell because you’re gay instead of loving I junp to hatred. Mouth open and tongue preaching, eyes open but not seeing that you are the same as me just a F****** human being.
I’m sorry that I only hang out with Christian friends and we only do nice Christian things like pot luck dinners and board game nights. While in the night a man beats his girlfriend again. Another homeless man dies again. Is this the that my own pride has been but here I am with my same friends again but see what I always forget is that Jesus didn’t come to hang out with the priests and the lords, no. He hung out with cripples and beggars and whores.
Love.
I’m sorry for history. For native tribes wiped out in the name of the church. Lodges burning. Stomachs churning and yearning for justice as mothers, screaming and bleeding, pleading for their young ones are dragged away to church schools where they were abused.
I’m sorry for the way that I refuse to learn your culture, instead I just came to spread the gospel - and the plague.
I’m sorry that I stand at the front doors of abortion clinics screaming at fifteen-year-old girls as they enter instead of waiting at the back door to hug them as they leave.
I’m sorry for taking my wars and my faith to your lands when historically your lands is where my faith was born. And in the face of the storm I realize that if God is Allah and Allah is God then why are we shooting instead of sharing? Why are we launching instead of learning? Why are we warring instead of walking together? Why are we taking instead of talking together? Why are we bombing instead of breaking bread together? You see I think looks down and He’s sad. And from His right hand throne above, Jesus asks “where is the love?” And if it takes Wil.I.Am and Justin Timberlake asking the same question for us to start asking the same question then where the f*** are we headed?
So I will take this stage to be my chapel and this mic to be my confessional, and in the presence of God and of you, the blessed, I confess I am a Christian. I’m sorry.
- A poem by Chris Tse
I’m a Christian and I’m not sorry.
I’m a Christian and I’m not sorry.
I’m not sorry for the way I come across. When I’m being friendly, I’m not fake – I’m genuine. If you think its fake, I’m sorry, but it’s not.
I’m not sorry that the way you speak communicates something about who you are to anyone who is paying attention. I don’t judge your spiritual health by the way that you dress, but the things that you do and the things that you say communicate a lot about you in the same way that what I do and say tells you a lot about me.
I’m not sorry for the way I live my life or for the tenacity with which I hold my worldview. I’m so confident in my beliefs that I will try to understand the beliefs of others in order to show their deficiency. But more than that I want to tell you of the Perfect Savior and the Holy God who is present nowhere else than the very gospel that other worldviews do not have.
I’m not sorry for Christians in the middle ages. I’ve read Foxes Book of Martyrs and I know how the Christians – the true Christians – were treated by the same Roman system that is responsible for all kinds of evils. I’m just sorry more people either aren’t willing or aren’t able to separate Christians and Christianity from the Roman Catholic Church, the associated monarchical system, and the abuses, perversions, and heresies that were hand in hand with that union.
I’m not sorry for being intolerant…because I’m not. Intolerance doesn’t allow others to speak. And unless I’m living in a parallel universe, those who oppose Christ and Christians have the primary positions on TV, Radio, Hollywood, Broadway, newspapers, and other forms of communication. I don’t seek to shut others down from saying what they believe; I just want the ability to do the same.
I’m not sorry for trying to live and be as Christ wants me to be while failing every day. That is how the Christian life is described in the Scriptures. And there are a great host of Christians who were the same type of “hypocrites” that I am. Look at Paul – he didn’t do what he wanted to do and longed to be free of the body of this death – but he was a true and genuine Christian. I, a Christian, don’t revel in nor seek to not repeat my failures, but I do not deny them or cover them up either.
I’m not sorry about greasy televangelists – I’m righteously angry toward them. They pervert the name of Jesus to line their pockets. I pray that God would have mercy on their souls now so that they can repent of their ill gotten gains, their filthy luker, and their hell-wrought theology. Otherwise they will be judged and condemned by God after they’ve enjoyed their short time on earth.
I’m not sorry that I don’t get drunk. I feel bad for non-Christians who drown themselves in alcohol, and I love and pity them and want them to be set free in Christ from their bondage. I am sorry for people who claim to be Christians but are in an unrepentant cycle of willful sin and very well may truly be non-Christians who are deceived into thinking that they have been forgiven.
I’m not sorry for seeing the importance of gathering together with other believers to hear the Word preached, to worship the Lord in singing, and to find ways to serve one another and others. And I’m not sorry to do that in a building that we try to keep clean and in good repair.
I’m not sorry for telling people that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” nor those enslaved to “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9 & Gal 5:19-21). All sinners are human beings, and all human beings are sinners, except Jesus Christ the righteous. And all human beings are wicked and are sure to be condemned by God unless Christ saves them through the power of His gospel. And as much as I don’t like it when what I say makes people upset or frustrated – I’m not sorry if this offends you.
I’m not sorry that I am pro-life and want to stop women from paying others to kill their children. I’m not sorry that I know and love women who have had abortions. I’m not sorry that my church reaches out to women in situations like this to love them and to share the gospel with them.
I’m not sorry for sending missionaries out into the world to spread the gospel. I’m not sorry that Christians are going into hostile lands where men, women, boys, and girls are killed, beat up, abused, and persecuted for the sake of the gospel.
I’m not sorry for distinguishing between the Allah of Islam and the God of the Bible. They are not the same. Believing in one is not believing in the other. I’m not sorry for being clear where the Bible is clear.
I’m a Christian and I’m not sorry.
Apparently I must have had the need for some sort of self flagellation because I found myself listening to recent podcasts from Woodland Hills Church. I was listening to Dr. Boyd’s recent sermons because, I must confess, I’m awfully curious to find out how he deals with the Crucifixion of Christ and the doctrine of justification when he comes to that part of Luke’s gospel. I also read Dr. Boyd’s blog or listen to his sermons to keep some tabs on one of the twin cities emergent-style leaders as well as for a quick reference to all things open-theistic. One of my most recent encounter with a wacky view of Dr. Boyd’s was when he articulated something that I called “The reverse psychology of Greg Boyd”. No, I’m not kidding. (link)
The messages that I listened to today were, if nothing else, what I have come to expect from Dr. Boyd’s preaching and theology. However, my point of logic-ache is not primarily directed at his poor treatment of “so that the Scripture would be fulfilled” references in the gospels or his Kingdom, open theism, or Christus victor Theologies. In his sermon about Judas Christianity, Dr. Boyd used a personal illustration to articulate his point. A few years back, an organization was requesting that pastors sign a petition to send to President Bush to oppose a two-state solution to the problems in Israel and Palestine. Boyd understood the petition as coming from those Christians who believe that the nation of Israel will have a future roll to play before Christ returns. Boyd then articulated his response to that petition with the following statements,
“We who are called to be peace makers in the name of the Peace Maker are preventing peace from happening. Two problems with that at least. One is that it is never good to set political policy on the basis of your interpretation of the Bible. Secondly, if it was prophesied and fated [that Israel would return to the land in the course of events related to the 2nd coming of Christ], then God really doesn’t need your help now, does He? So if God wants to take care of it, let God take care of it – stay out of His business [responded to with loud applause from the congregation].” (WHC – Lessons from the Betrayer, 2/7/10, comment ends @ 39:19)
Once again, my contention in this article is not with his theological stances that I object to, it is primarily with the statement, “that it is never good to set political policy on the basis of your interpretation of the Bible.” I’m sorry…what? Now I am not in favor of creating a Christian government or monarchy as in the kingdom of old, so don’t mistake me. The only way that laws will be changed for the better is if the hearts and minds of the voters are changed and renewed, not the other way around. But, Dr. Boyd, upon what basis ought Christians make decisions, political or otherwise? Should my decision on whether to support or oppose legislation be based on everything except my understanding of the Bible? Do you do that with “justice” issues? Do you, or would you, leave your doctrine at the door when it comes to voting or making decisions about taxation, racism, murder, or theft? Do you really want Christians to check their theology at the door and vote? Really? Wasn’t your rejection, Dr. Boyd, of the very petition you referred to in your illustration based in your theological conclusions of what the Bible says about love, peace, and eschatology?
If anyone objects to my criticism as being too harsh or that I’ve taken Dr. Boyd’s statement out of context, I think you’d be wrong. Dr. Boyd’s comment was in the context of rejecting a political petition that was by individuals who I can only assume were pre-millennialists. And Dr. Boyd’s own eschatology is, roughly (as I understand it) that the kingdom needs to come to earth through a peace and love, but regardless his eschatology is not the same as pre-millennialists. That means that Dr. Boyd did the very thing he urged others not to do – he took a political stance based on his theological convictions which are based on his understanding of the Bible.
Simply put – it is ridiculously non-Christian to urge Christians to refrain from making political decisions based on how they understand the Bible. The only sure guide we have to make decisions – whether they are, political, moral, social, economical, or relational – is Scripture. And in order to use Scripture, we must interpret it. Therefore, it is always the best idea to base your decision and your input into a political policy on your interpretation of Scripture. That does not mean that every single individual will have the same conclusions. This just means that interpreters are fallible but it doesn’t invalidate the principle of using the infallible guide.
I try not to watch too much TV, but honestly I watch way too much for all that I’ve got to do on a daily basis. But be that is it may, did I miss something? I had the Superbaal on yesterday while my family and I were cooped up in the house but I noticed that the 3rd Matrix movie was on at the same time. Now, I’ve never seen that movie before. I saw the first one in the theater and may have been the only one that I know who found it unentertaining and I was very thoroughly unimpressed. Well, I don’t know why, but my wife and I ended up getting the 2nd movie on DVD. We watched it once – and only once – and it was worse than the first one. It was at that point that I told my wife that I was not going to waste money to get the third when it came out even though there was a small part of me that wanted to see how the story ends (I’m usually a sucker for sagas). So when I saw that the local Ion Television channel was running this movie during the weekend, I decided to set my PVR to record it and watch it. Hey, it’s free, so I’m not out any money, right?
The movie was horrible, absolutely horrible. I didn’t know if I could like it less than the first two, but I most definitely did. I fast-forwarded through the emotional (anti) climactic scenes of the movie because they were just…unbearable. The death of Neo’s girlfriend, the final stand of the man-robot-guys (seriously…seriously?), and the triple or quadruple fake ending of the final duel between Smith and Neo were so over done and tiring that I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.
But my primary concern is not over the worthlessness of the movie, and it was most definitely worthless, or over the fact that it was an absolute life-draining waste of time even though I fast forwarded through some of it. My primary concern was the many times that I heard hard profanity and blasphemy on broadcast TV. I must admit, to my shame, that much of the casual and ordinary blasphemy that so dominates TV and other media now hits a callous point in my mind and heart when it should disturb me greatly enough to turn off whatever program I’m watching. So that is a different issue that I’ve got to look into, but I was totally shocked to hear compound blasphemous swearing on broadcast TV.
In case my terminology befuddles you, a compound blasphemy would be any curse or exclamation that uses the name of God along with another course or curse word. The last time I checked, I thought that these phrases were not allowed on broadcast TV. Whether or not that has changed in the TV standard books, I don’t know, but I was unaware that I would be hearing what I did. I know that cable channels have different standards, but I thought there were still some restrictions on broadcast TV.
Those who know me know that my wife and I very vigilantly monitor the programming that my children watch because we’re very aware of much of the corrosive and cancerous effect that TV (or other) garbage has on the mind and heart, and we desperately want to reduce that whenever possible when it comes to our children. But now, I am seriously reconsidering the radical notion of completely dropping TV. I’ve often wondered about what men did 100 years ago when they were trying to calm a screaming baby? I sit in my comfy chair in front of the tube, turn on something for the light and noise in hopes that it will lull my little guy to sleep, and that’s that. What did they do? I don’t know, but I bet I could tell you what I’d end up doing. A fair more amount of praying for my family and other things, singing to my son more, or so many more things. Sure, I’d probably have to work on my patience during those times, but seriously…what am I giving up and missing out on because of the convenience and seduction of TV?
If I decide to get rid of TV, it wouldn’t be a financial motive because I don’t pay $50 - $100 per month for TV now. It would be a health issue because I don’t want to be more calloused to important things than I already am and I don’t want to miss out on the opportunities for really important things.
I don’t pipe sewer water into my home because I like the feel of cool liquid at times, so why do I bring the TV in? I’m really starting to seriously ask that question again.
I cannot imagine the reality of the horrendous devastation, tragedy, and horror for the many people on the ground in Haiti. Even from the little coverage that I have seen and read, the situation is truly one that does not remind me so much of Katrina, but of the Boxing Day Tsunami. I am thankful that I have been emotionally spared from the actual individual stories of survivors who lost their families. I only have to think about what a ruined state I would be propelled into if my wife and children were suddenly and violently taken away from me in order to emotionally identify with those who are actually experiencing this nightmare.
Domestically there are many individuals and families who are in the throws of financial and economic distress. Some people are suffering because of poor choices that they have made (or are continuing to make), some are suffering because of the loss of work, but regardless of the reasons why people are in financial peril, their individual fears and problems are no less real. And even though I have not personally experienced the loss of employment, of savings, of a home, or of other related things, I can easily see how difficult and stressful that situation would be for anyone – much less for a guy who has a wife and four children.
So how does the grace of God relate to these situations? To me?
Personally, I have been spared from these problems. Sure I feel some of the residual effects of them – especially the financial woes of the economy (who doesn’t?), but I have not been directly hit by either of these two things at this time. So for me, personally, God’s grace may well be in play in the fact that I have been spared. But I think God has been even more powerfully gracious to me than simply by keeping me from those problems.
Trying to be a good husband and father I regularly examine my families finances, spending habits, saving habits, and giving habits. I had noticed several months ago that spending had to be dealt with, and so my wife and I really have buckled down and became much more spending conscious. Well, it was in one of these regular self-examinations that I saw all of the same information that I’d been examining for years in a relatively new light. The numbers and percentages were basically the same as the ones that I had been looking at for a long time, but something was different in the way that I was seeing them…and let me tell you, it was not a pleasant view. This realization sent me into a minor tail-spin of calculating, re-calculating, brainstorming, and general stressing out that lasted for about 12 hours. I had (and still have) no answer for some of the dilemmas that I now see, but God is gracious….
By the time it was time to put my children to bed, I asked my four year-old to grab the Bible that we use for our Bible time and give it to my six year-old to find Proverbs 30. Once he found it, my blessed wife, assuming what I wanted to talk to the children about, encouraged him to read the underlined verses. This is what he read,
“7 Two things I asked of You, Do not refuse me before I die : 8 Keep deception and lies far from me, Give me neither poverty nor riches ; Feed me with the food that is my portion, 9 That I not be full and deny You and say, ‘Who is the LORD ?’ Or that I not be in want and steal, And profane the name of my God.” (Prov 30:7-9)
God’s grace is evident by helping me to see the instability of the financial towers made by men and to realize that my trust (to any extent) in them is futile and ultimately a form of idolatry. My little wake-up call helped me to see where I have placed my trust in things and now I am allowed me an opportunity to deal with the heart of the matter – my misplaced faith. I can, and need to, totally trust the LORD in all things as it relates to money, health, natural disasters, or whatever. God’s grace to me in this situation is showing me an area of sin that needs to be dealt with, and then being present to help in my mortifying of it.
God’s grace is also evident in the Haiti earthquake or the financial problems for those who have been most drastically and hardest hit, both for those who are Christians and those who are not. Unless a person’s life has been taken by God’s hand in the disaster in Haiti, this is a time where His grace is being displayed to all. It is not only a display of God’s grace when He spared all those who were not killed in Haiti or that He spared from being crushed by the financial crisis. It is God’s gracious act toward those who have lost homes, loved ones, or livelihoods because God has brought them to a place where they are stripped of all things that they cling to for security and hope and shown them the utter weakness of those things. And a brush with your own mortality (even if you come by it vicariously over the TV) is a gracious act of God. When we contemplate our very existence, we are brought straight back to the questions that the Bible specifically addresses."Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.” (Matthew 10:29)
Whether it is the crashing of your bank account or the crashing of the building you’re standing in, nothing happens apart from the plan and will of God. For those who die without Christ, it is an act of judgment. For those who survive without Christ, it is a display of God’s grace. For those in Christ, whether they survive or perish, we know that God works all things together for our good and His glory.
Soli Deo Gloria
“They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19)
For about the last four years (as I remember my line-in-the-sand in conjunction with the birth of my second son) I have been an ardent advocate of the truth that faith in Christ, true saving faith, is a gift that is given to some, the elect, and not to others. When stated clearly like that, it can be a bit…uncomfortable or controversial inside of the church. But that is where I stand on the basis of Scripture.
And by the grace of God, I have been saved for over 20 years. By the grace of God I have been spared from emotional, physical, and spiritual pitfalls and trouble. The Lord has spared me from certain things and disciplined me out of love for other things when I sinned. The older I get and the more I work with and study in the church, the more I am convinced of the truth and glory of the fact that true saving faith is a gift from God which He imparts to the elect.
I fully and whole-heartedly acknowledge and glorify God in the fact that I am certain that the only reason that I am a faithful, yet constantly warring with sin, disciple of Christ is that God has given me new life and faith to believe in Him. And because it is a gift from God, it will not fail. Because my faith is a gift of God, it will continue and endure forever. For if my faith fails and I deny Christ or deny the true doctrines of salvation for the apostate doctrines of men that mingle human works with the work of Christ, this will begin to show that John’s words would apply to me.
…so why am I blogging this (after months of silence)?
- I want to get back into writing (published or not) my thoughts and meditations. It is a very helpful tool for my own growth and development that I have missed of late. And let’s face it – life’s not going to get less busy ever, so I gotta kick it into gear now.
- Sometimes I take things for granted – health, life, faith, house, job, you name it. Well, today I am intentionally not taking the faith that was given to me for granted.
Soli Deo Gloria
The following is the final paragraph of my paper (still in rough form at this time) on the theology of God in The Shack. I will post more at a later time, but this sums up most of what I believe about this popular book:
This book is not a Pilgrim’s Progress for our generation (as Eugene Peterson claims). If anything, it may have the effect of pushing many people into a heretical view of God when Pilgrim’s Progress encouraged devotion to the true God. And if the current acclaim for The Shack is that it gives readers a whole new perspective of God or that it changes how they understand God, then this much can be sure: whatever that reader’s previous understanding of God was before reading The Shack, he is now more fully embracing a non-Biblical and soul damning view of a god who not only cannot save his soul, but does not exist.
I make my comments regarding the tornado, where and when it happened, and who has made what comments very carefully knowing that my own comments are equally (if not way more so) dissectible and wrong on a point or emphasis here or there.
You can read the comments of Dr. Piper and Dr. Boyd and in it you will find more details surrounding the tornado in Minneapolis, its timing and place relative to the ELCA conference. But in a snapshot, here’s how I understand what the events were:
The ELCA was going to have a vote regarding human sexuality in its denomination, and this vote was to take place at the very church and the very time when the tornado hit and broke its steeple.
Dr. Piper laid out his thoughts for why there is some precedent for stating the following:
Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.1
Dr Boyd’s comment about why this happened is very different:
I have an alternative interpretation of tornado behavior to offer. They have nothing to do with how pro-gay or how sinful people are and everything to do with where people happen to live. Tornadoes strike Oklahoma frequently because it’s located in a place where hot and cold air currents tend to collide frequently at certain times of the year. Much less frequently, the same thing happens in the Twin Cities. Why can’t we just leave it at that?2
My brief thoughts about Dr. Piper’s comments:
I think that Dr. Piper’s comment is off specifically related to his use of the word “was” instead of “might have been”. We can only interpret Scripture definitively. Natural disasters or murder (or whatever else) is not subject matter that we can answer the specific question of why it happened. We can, and should, uphold the big answers the question. The big answer, as I understand Scripture, is that God will be glorified and that His purposes will be accomplished in this world. I can say that definitively, but I think that we must be careful by saying that this tornado was for a certain specific purpose and not another.
My brief thoughts about Dr. Boyd’s comments:
Dr. Boyd stressed that the issue is not with how sinful people are, but where they “happen” to live. I stress the word “happen” because he went on to specifically objects to John Piper’s use of the Biblical example of Jesus rebuking the storm as evidence that God controls all of the weather by saying the following:
Even more interesting, Jesus “rebukes” the storm by commanding it to be “quiet.” The Greek term used here literally means “to muzzle” or “strangle,” and its the same word he sometimes used when confronting demons. The implication is that, far from suggesting that Jesus controls all storms, the passage actually suggests that at least some life-threatening storms have a demonic power behind them that resists God’s good purposes (for a fuller discussion on this, see Boyd, God at War [IVP, 1997]).3
I have not read Dr. Boyd’s “God at War” book, I believe that I understand his presupposition and thinking. Effectively God doesn’t control those things in the purposeful way that John Piper sees. For Dr. Boyd natural disasters are random and catch us off guard…but God didn’t know that they were going to happen either or He couldn’t (or didn’t) control them. For Dr. Boyd, the future is not something that is knowable by God.
I have understood his openness theology as it relates to human decisions but never in relation to natural disasters or the weather. But I suppose one has to go along with the other because it may be possible that man could alter the climate and weather (I don’t know Dr. Boyd’s position on this one, so I’ll leave it at that). However, I fully disagree with the presupposition that acts, natural or otherwise, in this world are truly random as they relate to God and His purposes.
I think that Piper is correct in his understanding that God has a purpose in all suffering and all disaster, but I think that he (and we) go too far when we ascribe what the exact purpose was. To speculate what it might be is another ball of wax, but we are better off there than to be dogmatic about the exact divine purpose of an event.
The question is not whether or not there was a purpose in the tornado that hit the ELCA church, the question is what was the purpose. And the definitive answer is the same as it is to the question of why tornados came through my neighborhood last year – I don’t know. And to ascribe a particular reason goes beyond our ability to understand natural revelation and events, but to ascribe that there is no purpose at all and that things just randomly happen apart from God’s divine purpose is to misunderstand God’s special revelation.
That’s my two cents.
Soli Deo Gloria.
1 http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/_
2 http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/did-god-send-a-tornado-to-warn-the-elca/
3 Ibid.
Last night my brother-in-law asked if I wanted to go out witnessing to people at Como Zoo today. I sooooo wanted to go, but today has been booked up for me for a while what with studying for seminary and preparing a sermon for Sunday (I know...not going out evangelizing because I'm studying is pretty lame, but its my only day off to study before I preach 3 weeks in a row and have a paper due for Seminary right after that).
Well, I am sitting at my desk working when my brother-in-law calls me. It's about the time when he said he'd be leaving anyway and so I excitedly ask him how it went. His answer was, basically, that they just got started singing a few hymns and then were asked to leave because "we don't allow this here."
So a small group of Christians were asked to leave a public place (I don't believe Como is privately owned) because they're singing a few hymns must have offended people (and apparently 93X was playing on some speakers there - go figure).
Well, if nothing else - I'm not going to miss the next time!
“Am I supposed to believe that God is a big black woman with a questionable sense of humor?” 1
As a matter of fact, yes. In this novel Mr. Young portrays God the Father, for the most part, as “a large beaming African-American woman” named Papa.2 It is in this context, where not only the Father is portrayed as a woman but the character of the Holy Spirit is a slight Asian woman named Sarayu, that Mr. Young goes to great lengths in an attempt to justify his creative license in not wanting to reinforce a stereotype that the Father would resemble Gandalf from Lord of the Rings. I too would like to dispel the notion that God the Father is a white-bearded grandfather in the sky, but not by replacing Gandalf with a character who resembles Mrs. Butterworth.
Although this issue of the incarnation of the Father as a woman originally was of high concern, I was shocked at how accustomed to reading feminine pronouns attributed to either the Father or Spirit and how little they seemed to bother me as the book went on. I must have been most of the way through the book before I realized at how desensitized I had become to constantly referring to Mr. Young’s version of the Biblical God as “she”. This was even more infuriating to me when my primary purpose in reading the book was to examine and critique the theological content. How much more would a casual reader, who is engrossed in the story and not intending to examine its theology, be desensitized to the conception of God as a woman? It is both because of the grievous nature of this characterization of God and its desensitizing effect that it has upon the reader that this is the first primary theological issue that I will examine.
There may be few things that are as clearly stated in Scripture as it relates to how we are to picture God than His command in the Decalogue: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” (Ex 20:4) The word idol, or graven image, may make one think only of worship and so it may be easy to divorce the Mrs. Butterworth-like incarnation from the second commandment because she’s not a statue and there is no real worship service directed at her that occurs in the book (although there are “devotions” where the Shack-Trinity3 talk of their love for one another).
It may further be argued that my objection would not be raised if the Father and Spirit’s characters were male instead of female, and honestly that may have been the case. Others may continue to object because there is not this kind of uproar over the symbolic depiction of Jesus Christ as Aslan in the Narnia series. This objection is true for me personally in that Narnia didn’t cross my radar in such a way so as to raise my concerns, but that doesn’t change the fact that it still may well be, and I think that it is, a violation of God’s Word to depict Him in that way. So in the cases where I have been silent when God is depicted wrongly in fiction, I take responsibility for not responding when I was exposed to it. However, the fact that objections were not raised in the past does not excuse or give a pass to The Shack.
The point is that Exodus 20:4 does not limit objectionable images or likenesses to that of a specific characterization (i.e. Gandalf, Aslan, Papa, etc.) or substance (wood, gold, stone, etc.) and Christians should ardently object to any creaturely characterization of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. In their commentary on this commandment, Keil and Delitzsch compare the command given with Deuteronomy 4:9ff where Moses reminds the people that when they were given the Ten Commandments they “saw no form—only a voice.” (Deuteronomy 4:12) They go on to say that the specific terms used to describe the graven images “are to be understood as referring to symbolical representations of Jehovah.”4 In other words, artistic license – even if it is not for the primary purpose of pagan-type worship – is not a valid shelter for this type of characterization of God the Father or the Holy Spirit that we have present in The Shack.
And I would further add that if we do need to anthropomorphize the Father, Son, or Spirit at any time that we should first and foremost be very careful when we do so. And if we still feel confident to tread these waters and somehow express what God is like, we must do so only in the language and context that the Scriptures present God in. There are plenty of ways that God’s character and attributes are shown in Scripture, and we should be very careful to limit our characterization of Him to the way that He has provided for us.
To close out my thoughts on this particular part of this issue, I want to look at Christ’s words lest people object to my using only using the Law and not the New Testament.
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23,24)
I submit that the characterization of God the Father as Mr. Young does in his book violates both verse 23 where we are to worship God in truth and verse 24 where we are plainly told, “God is spirit.” And by definition, spirit is not something that we can put tangible/human substance to. But furthermore, Jesus says that true worshippers will worship in spirit and truth…and the truth that we have is the Scriptures themselves and what they say about God.
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Finally, and briefly, I want to address the fact that the author did choose to have the two members of the Shack-Trinity incarnate as women. First of all, the way in which God has chosen to refer to Himself in the Scriptures is by using masculine pronouns, never feminine. There are a few instances where an action of God is compared to something feminine, but that is hardly a warrant to anthropomorphize or incarnate God as a woman. One of the more common texts that may be brought up to object to what I’m saying is Matthew 23:37 where Jesus is lamenting over the false teaching of the Pharisees,
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matt 23:37)
You see – Christ Himself depicts Himself in a feminine way in this verse. Well, that is what some would say to add validity to the feminization of God in their overall theology or in their ability to have God be a woman in their fictional book. I, however, would like to point out the phrase “the way a” which is also rendered “as” in various translations. Jesus is not comparing Himself to a hen, He is comparing His desired action to that of a hen – there is a big difference. Furthermore, the feminine characterization is not even of a mother or wife…but of poultry. I certainly hope all Christians would object to a fictional characterization of God as a chicken, but you never know these days.
1 William P. Young, “The Shack” (Los Angeles, Windblown Media, 2007) 88-89.
2 Ibid. 82.
3 I cannot, in good conscience, refer to the characterization of Mr. Young’s god in The Shack simply as the Trinity because that term actually means something in the history of Christianity. I will deal with this at a later time and why I am so adamant about my concerns here, but that is why I must use this term to refer to the Mr. Young’s created god.
4 Keil, Carl Friedrich ; Delitzsch, Franz: Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA : Hendrickson, 2002, S. 1:396
Copyright © 2005-2010 Eric Johnson
