The Shoddiness of Reviews: Interacting with a Review of the Shack

Allow me to be clear, I am not interested in defending The Shack.  I want to defend honesty and scholarly reviews.  I just read Dr. Michael LeFebvre’s review of The Shack, entitled The Shoddiness of The Shack (here) and was overwhelmed with his misrepresentation of The Shack.  Dr. LeFebvre’s first sentence establishes a false criterion to review the book.  He writes, “The Shack is a modern day allegory of the Christian life. Like John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, William Young’s The Shack is a vivid tale designed to teach the reader about the way of salvation.”  The Shack is neither and allegory, nor intended to teach “the way of salvation.”  To treat it as such is dishonest and unscholarly.  A strawman argument is an informal fallacy which substitutes “a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.”  This is the methodology that LeFebvre uses in his critique of The Shack.

LeFebvre treats The Shack as though it is an allegory of the Christian life.  The Shack is a novel that does not in any way resemble an allegory.  Nor does it address the “Christian life” per se.  It would appear that LeFebvre saw Eugene Peterson’s comment on the cover of the book and then began his review. “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgripm’s Progress did for his.  It’s that good.”  Eugene Peterson did not intimate that The Shack is an allegory.  Peterson simply said that it will impact our generation as Bunyan’s work did his own.  Young’s subtitle explains what the book is about, “Where Tragedy Confront Eternity.”  In the Acknowledgements, William Young writes, “Most of us have our own grief, broken dreams, and damaged hearts, each of us our unique losses, our own ‘shack.’  I pray you find the same grace there that I did…”  The point of The Shack is how a believer can face extraordinary pain by meeting with God.  An honest review will address the main prmise of the book, not demand that it meet the readers expectations on an entirely different topic.

            Not only did Dr. LeFebvre errantly treat The Shack as an allegory, he also treated as “designed to teach the reader about the way of salvation.”  Again, the subtitle is abundantly clear “Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity.”  The main character of the book is a believer.  He has wandered away from God due to an unspeakable tragedy, but he did not stop believing.  In a conversation with Jesus about the effects of the fall (pp. 148-149) Mack asks Jesus, “Is there any way out of this?” To which Jesus replies and tells us something of Young’s view of salvation, “It is so simple, but never easy for you: by re-turning.  By turning back to me.”  Jesus’ character in The Shack points out that the effects of the curse are only addressed by turning to Jesus, (Matthew 11:28-30).  Later, Mack expresses his faith by saying “I love Papa…” (p. 166).  Young did not write the book to tell non-Christian to go to a Shack and meet with God to be saved.  He wrote The Shack to help believers deal with grief.  He points out that the reason our grief turns believers away from God is that their “understanding of God is wrong.”  When overwhelmed by our grief, we forget that God is good.  That is the point Young seeks to make in Mack’s meeting in the cave with Wisdom (aka Sophia).  LeFebvre continues on in this mistaken trajectory and predictably dismisses the book’s value.

            LeFebvre points out the strengths of The Shack, which is its effort to answer hard questions about grief.  He writes, “The church would benefit from more novels that confront the hard questions about God’s hand amidst the dysfunctionality woes of modern society.”  He then criticizes The Shack for removing Pilgrim’s fleeing from the City of Desctruction and finding grace.  But this was never Young’s point.  Whereas the Pilgrim in Pilgrim’s Progress initially was unsaved, Mack is a believer from the beginning of chapter one.  LeFebrvre criticizes Young as having “a novel image of God and a new doctrine of salvation.”  In order to prove this, LeFebvre takes a portion of a statement made to Mack, the believer, aand presents it as though it is an expression of the way of salvation. 

Papa is helping Mack learn to forgive.  In referring to Mack’s unforgiveness, Papa says, “I want to take away one more thing that darkens your heart.”  The scene is all about a moment of sanctification in a believer’s life.  As Mack finds his heart resisting, Papa says gently, “Son, this is not about shaming you.  I don’t do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation.  They don’t produce one speck of wholeness or righteousness, and that is why they were nailed into Jesus on the cross.”  The statement, “I don’t do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation.” Is not a comprehensive declaration of Young’s view of salvation.  It is a reflection of Romans 2:4, “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”  and Romans 8:1, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”  It is neither novel, nor a new view of salvation.  Instead, Young’s words accurately reflect the Word of God.  It also leads me to wonder if LeFebvre read the book, or just sought out quotes to discount it.  If he did read it, how could he miss the obvious and absolutely clear context of those words?  If he noticed the context, why would he misrepresent it?  It seems very dishonest to me and clearly unscholarly.

            LeFebvre goes on to accuse Young of wanting to oppose traditional orthodox Christianity.  He writes, “The Shack really is an explicit effort to offer Christians a new vision of God beyond that presented by a traditional, orthodox reading of the Bible.”  Young does not want to oppose orthodoxy, but the error of legalism.  Not all seminaries teach orthodoxy.  Apparently, the one Mack attended did not.  Is that not a more reasonable, honest, and charitable understanding of Young’s intention?  Why not recognize that what William Young is trying to present is that many presentations of God within Christendom are flawed.  Sadly, many people believe these ideas and when they face tragedy, they lose faith.

            When an individual is overwhelmed with the sadness in this life they need to reconsider what they think about God.  That is what Young is trying to provide.  He begins by accurately presenting that God is Triune.  He represents the Trinity in an awkward fashion—partly because we cannot grasp the concept of three persons and one God—but he is clear that God is one.  He agrees with the anti-ESS crowd by pointing out that there is no hierarchy in the Godhead, therefore women are not subordinated to men.  (Well said, Mr. Young.)  When Mack asks, “Which one of you is God?”  ‘I am.’ Said all three in unison.” (p.89).  (Exactly!)  He begins with the Trinity to demonstrate that love is an essential characteristic of God.  This allows the believer, facing grief, to understand that God cannot act toward him in any way other than in love.  When facing grief, the accusation that the mourner faces is that God is not loving.  Young begins by destroying this accusation.

            The next accusation faced in grief is to question God’s goodness.  When I see the awful mess around me, I must find comfort in God’s goodness.  As I counsel people facing great loss, I continually remind them to interpret the events through the lens of God’s goodness.  Sadly, the ‘Health and Wealth’ preachers of our day interpret goodness as health and wealth.  If God is good, he will give me one of these.  Isn’t that essentially what Job’s friends told him?  Young addresses this when Mack speaks with the Holy Spirit (aka Sarayu).  Sarayu asks Mack, “When something happens to you, how do you determine whether it is good or evil?”  Mack responds, “something is good when I like it—when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security.”  To which Sarayu responds, “So it is pretty subjective then?”  That is just the problem.  We tend to judge God and his goodness based on our narrow, limited, subjective perspective.  Young seeks to oppose this as he invites us to judge our situations based on the goodness of God.  This is precisely what Isaiah indicates in Isaiah 55:8-9 "’For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.’”  In light of faith in God’s goodness, the Christian is able to trust that God’s way is good, even when he cannot see how.

            When I am honest, and I consider The Shack in light of its stated intention, it becomes a helpful book.  It is flawed.  It is awkward.  It does push against some popular theological ideas.  Young is an Arminian.  As a Calvinist, I must overlook his view of unlimited atonement—what else would I expect?  (He doesn’t need to agree with me.)  Honestly, all of this is true of an book written by a sinful man.  What I resist is the condemnation of The Shack—or any book—which does not take into account what the book actually says.  In Seminary we spoke of students known as “heresy hounds.”  These men sought to find any error and expose it as a damnable heresy.  They would even say, “What the preacher said is true, but what he meant is heresy.”  I never liked that approach to life.  Somehow it seemed to violate 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.  I think that Dr. LeFebvre’s review does the same thing.  I hope that reviewers will try to be honest and scholarly in their reviews.

Election 2016

In Matthew 7:12, our Lord says, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This is so important following the election results…from everyone.  President Trump has invited us to come together.  He offered some very kind words toward Mrs. Clinton thereby indicating that his rhetoric during the campaign was just that.  Secretary Clinton urged her supporters that they owe Mr. Trump an open mind.  These are good reminders, and I hope, more than just political speech.  Our population is divided in half between those who are pleased with the results and those who are disappointed.  How would you wish to be treated if you were on the other side?

            Today, I read posts from Trump supporters criticizing Clinton supporters who are protesting, even though Trump himself indicated that he would have protested had he lost.  On the other hand, Clinton supporters who criticized Trump for his willingness to only support the results if he won, are now declaring, “Not my president.”  That is not how our government works.  I would hope that believers would demonstrate compassionate understanding toward those who voted differently. 

The Trump supporters should be pleased.  It was unlikely that Mr. Trump would win.  His supporters believe deeply in many of the issues raised by Trump and long to see conservative ideals directing our nation.  Let them celebrate.  “Rejoice with those who rejoice.” Clinton supporters are deeply saddened.  The loss was a total surprise and they either supported a more progressive ideology or were offended by Trump’s rhetoric.  Let them grieve.  “Weep with those who weep.” 

The glory of God is at stake.  We are not Americans first.  We are the people of God.  What unites the Church is a love for Jesus Christ AND His people.  When we mock one another, we do not demonstrate the glory of God.  I hope that we can consider the emotions being felt by our brothers and sisters and demonstrate understanding and compassion.  We pray for our nation and our leaders so that the Gospel will spread and sinners will be saved.  Let’s not lose sight of our purpose.

"Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life."

Rich Mullins on Politics

In an interview, Rich Mullins said this.  I share it not as a sort of fatalistic response to the election, but as a reminder to live for heaven.  That is my home.

“I think for a long time I believed that there would be political solutions because, growing up in America, you endure several political campaigns and these people make promises and they say, we will do this and we will do that and you believe them because you don't know any better. And I really believed for a long time that this was all going to work. And I thank God now for Richard Nixon and for Gerald Ford and for all those people who betrayed any confidence that the American people could have in their government who said that the leadership of this country is not accountable to the people who elect them and who made so clear what we now know that no government works. And I wanted the government to work. And what I have now realized is I used to make fun of the sentimental feeling of the church that there was an afterlife. I used to mock songs about Heaven. And I used to think that it was somehow stupid and even wicked to dream of Heaven and to long for Heaven. And now I see the kind of a horrible place earth really is. And I go hiking and I go, this could be so beautiful. I met the guy last night sweeping the stairs down there and I talked to this very gentle man, a very kind man, a very simple man and I thought, how could a world made up of people like this be such a horrible place. And then I pick up the paper and read about dishonesty and deceit and betrayal and all that and go, I do long for Heaven. Someday God will destroy injustice. Someday there will be a judgment and because we have a loving and a forgiving Father, maybe we'll survive it. If we don't, sometimes I think hell is better than what we deserve anyway.”

1 Peter 2:11-12 “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.”

 

Bonhoeffer

This morning I read an article from the Banner of Truth which critiqued Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  While I do appreciate much of Bonhoeffer’s work, this is not a defense of Bonhoeffer.  It is a defense of scholarship and an opposition to “proof by assertion” arguments.  While there are a number of areas to both agree and disagree with MacLeod, I will address just one point he makes in order to illustrate the flaw of his methodology.

MacLeod writes, “For evangelicals the cross is at the centre of their faith. Bonhoeffer did not believe in substitutionary atonement – Christ suffering as a substitute for our sins, dying in our place to earn eternal life for us.”  MacLeod offer no examples of this assertion, he does not point the reader to a single citation to demonstrate this serious accusation—an accusation that would remove Bonhoeffer’s works from the realm of Christian writings.  In addition, this assertion is patently false.

In Chapter 4 of the Cost of Discipleship, which is entitled, “Discipleship and the Cross”, Bonhoeffer writes, “The Son of God bore our flesh, he bore the cross, he bore our sins, thus making atonement for us.”  What is Bonhoeffer talking about if not “substitutionary atonement?”  Earlier in the same chapter, Bonhoeffer writes, “…since he has suffered for and borne the sins of the whole world…” which while not Calvinistic—but Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran—this statement is clearly teaching “substitutionary atonement.” Later he writes, “…it is true that only the suffering of Christ can atone for sin,” leaving no doubt about his position on the “substitutionary atonement” of Christ.  Here are three statements by Bonhoeffer that disprove the assertion of MacLeod.

For some reason, MacLeod felt it necessary to disparage Bonhoeffer.  I cannot see the benefit of his efforts.  He may have noted some of the errors of Bonhoeffer, which is good, but why make up something that is easily disproven?  I am disappointed at the lack of scholarship in his article.  I understand that MacLeod does not want people to “blindly” follow Bonhoeffer.  I agree.  I am opposed to “blindly” following anyone, including Calvin.  To reject all of Bonhoeffer is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Bonhoeffer brings a much needed critique to Cheap Grace—a theological ideology that is running rampant today.  His description of a grace that justifies sin and not the sinner is invaluable today.  His honest effort to follow Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount are essential to be heard today when many teachers over-spiritualize Jesus’ words.

I think it behooves us to read Bonhoeffer, compare his words with Sacred Writ, discard the errors and follow the truth he espoused and lived.  His determination to oppose oppression

Belize 2016 Update

Dear friends,

God is stubborn. He always gets His way. I guess a part of the Christian life is learning to be glad He does. This is the message God seemed to want to deliver to our team last week in Belize.

Saturday morning, our team left Baltimore for Houston on United Airlines (The airline becomes important later). We had a short layover in Houston so we got to the gate just a few minutes before boarding. We had a couple of teens who needed letters of permission signed by both parents. As the flight began to board, the United agent discovered that one of the parents wrote their name but failed to sign the document. (The parents missed this, I missed this, the notary missed this, the two ticketing agents in Baltimore missed this.) He could not get on the flight. This was not my plan. We were stranded in Houston trying to either find a way to get original copies of newly signed and notarized documents to us, or to send him back to Baltimore.

The United agent, Brandy, saw this young man and said, “We need to help him get to Belize. She began a non-stop, determined flood of calls. She contacted ticketing agents in DC and flight attendants who would be heading to Houston and ultimately arranged for the papers to be brought to us in Houston. United provided two Hotel rooms for the night and we arrived in Belize a day late, but in time for worship Sunday evening. (I preached.) The young man, though at first discouraged, saw God’s hand in all of this. He had been at a football camp up until the day before we left for Belize. He had not slept well, and he was exhausted. He recognized that God gave him a private room in an air conditioned Hotel to give him some much needed rest before a grueling week in Belize. God is stubborn, and good.

On Tuesday, one of the women on our team came down with a virulent stomach virus that left her dehydrated. Her roommate was a Physician serving the clinic in Patchakan. We transported her to the clinic where she spent the day recovering and receiving IV fluids. Her teenage son was also on the trip. When he learned of his mother’s illness, this man went to her side. He sat near her, and cared for her. He even left the work site at one point to see to her needs. His attentiveness to his mom lifted her spirits and help to draw them closer together. We want health, but God prefers love. He is stubborn, and good.

This year, we committed to a very new ministry for us. We decided to take our VBS program to Belize. In the past, our “word” ministry has been doing sports with the kids and bringing a short devotional. Doing a full-blown VBS required much more preparation, supplies, and energy. We did not know what to expect. When we arrived, our “deed” ministry was to re-roof a Sunday school building. We could do some of the deconstruction for about two hours on Monday and then the Belizeans took over. We stood around a lot. Several members walked throughout Patchakan inviting children to VBS. Although very hot, we did not have much work to do. Through the week we saw more and more kids come to VBS. On Thursday, around 90 kids showed up. That was amazing. If we had worked as hard on the “deed” ministry as we had in the past we would have lacked energy for teaching kids the Word of God. Oh…on the last day, we finished our projects and helped the church finish its Sunday School building. We had our plan, but God’s was better. He is stubborn, and good.

The Spirit works in the hearts of His people. The Belize team learned to look for that plan. Faith (Hebrews 11:6) involves our purposeful choice to take up God’s plan. How sweet it is when we do this willingly. Thanks for praying.

Response to Kevin Labby

 I recently read Kevin Labby’s thoughts on hiring Tullian Tchividjian so soon after his deposition (see here).  His explanation revolves around the ideas expressed in these two paragraphs.

I’ve long thought that American evangelical churches do a generally abysmal job caring for their “fallen” pastors. We drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen. I’ve seen it. Heck, I’ve participated in it.

Jesus didn’t do that. After Peter’s three-fold denial, he sought after him and worked to restore him. He went after Doubting Thomas, and reassured him back into service. He went after the deserting disciples on the road to Emmaus.

The issue raised in the second paragraph is easy to address.  There is a difference between Peter’s momentary lapse, and even his repentance, and that of a pastor who carried on an adulterous relationship while weekly exercising leadership in the church. 

The first issue Kevin raises is based entirely on a false dichotomy, as though there are only two options.  Either we hire fallen pastors in our churches, or we “drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on.”  Maybe this happens, but the failure of some does not mean we should ignore the teaching of Scripture that a leader in the church ought to be above reproach, living a life worthy of imitation (1 Timothy 3 and Hebrews 13:7).  According to the PCA constitution, Tullian was disqualified for office and was assigned to the oversight of a local session.  Unless sessions are utterly incapable of caring for a fallen pastor, Tullian would have been shepherded and assisted to bring about true repentance.  His restoration to church membership was never in question.  His qualification for office was. 

Kevin mentions Tchividjian’s need to provide for his family.  Yes he does need to provide for his family, and so do all of the men in a congregation.  Why would a church hire him and not others?  This is a “red herring.”  It makes the decision look more pious but is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  By hiring Tullian, the church bestowed on him an honor which was inappropriate.  When Chuck Colson was convicted of obstruction of justice, he was disbarred and unable to make a living as an attorney.  Why would there be lower standards for a minister of the gospel.  It is not ungracious to require the deposed minister to get a job outside of the ministry context.  It may be ungracious toward the people the deposed minister has injured to hire him to a church position. 

The currently proponents of grace, which I believe is actually “cheap grace” consistently create a black and white world.  It is either law or gospel; grace or legalism, Jesus or Pharisees, drumming “out of service; clear the books; and move on” or hire the fallen pastor as church staff and promote them returning to their teaching ministry online.  I believe that the best option is to see that by Tullian’s sin, God indicated that he was no longer qualified for ministry.  Therefore, we can rightly conclude that God wanted Tullian out of ministry related work.  I, for one, would rather not argue with God.

Hermeneutics

     I want to post a couple of my thought on hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting a text.  I am seeing a growing lack of hermeneutical discipline and I would like to remind believers of how to properly understand the Scripture.

     I just listened to a sermon in which the preacher repeated a common assertion that the first century division between Jews and Gentiles corresponds to the racial divisions between blacks and whites in the US.  On the surface, this seems like a fair statement if we assume the Jews and Gentiles was divided primarily by ethnicity.  What divided Jews and Gentiles was not their family lines, but their faith.  The people of God were not to intermarry with Gentiles because it would lead to idolatry.[1]  That is why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:14, tells believers to not marry unbelievers.  Ephesians 2:11-22 shows what divided the Jews and Gentiles.  In Jesus, Gentiles are brought into the covenant and are made fellow partakers of grace with believing Jews.  

     If, as the aforementioned preacher suggested, the division between blacks and whites is parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles, and Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, doesn’t it follow that blacks are outside of the covenant?  The apodosis is clearly wrong, therefore one of the protases must be wrong.  Since Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, then the division between blacks and whites is not parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles.

     The assertion by the preacher led me to wonder, “How could he draw that conclusion?”  Today, I am seeing a lot of common hermeneutical errors used to promote an agenda.  This preacher rightly opposes racial divisions and is working to build a multi-ethnic congregation.  I think his intention is noble but he is seeking to justify his efforts and exalt their importance by equating it to the work of the Apostle Paul, (Ephesians 3:1-10).  The problem is that his effort at racial reconciliation has an even higher purpose—which was really at the root of Paul’s apostleship—love.  Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."[2]  Love is the greatest commandment and summarizes the entire law and the prophets.  What we are doing in racial reconciliation is helping all of God’s people to learn to love one another.  We are not trying to bring African Americans into the covenant with us. 

      The hermeneutical error that the preacher made is to fail to understand the context in which the passage of scripture was written.  The exegete must first understand how the passage was understood in the original context, then glean the universal principle that applies to all situations, and finally apply that principle to today’s audience.  It is too common for preachers to skip the first step and simply assert that our situation is the same as those who first received the message from the text.  It may even be helpful to advance our agenda.  However, it is lazy and may bring about some dangerous errors.

---

[1] Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.”

[2] John 13:35