via Tastyspirit.com

via Tastyspirit.com

(0 comments, 9 posts)

This user hasn't shared any profile information

Posts by via Tastyspirit.com

Naked on the road to healing

1

Over the last 2 years, my attitudes towards nakedness and nudity have undergone some fundamental changes.  When I speak of nakedness, I am primarily talking about the the emotional and soul state of nakedness, that of hiding nothing from someone, of being fully vulnerable. I think nakedness has deep meanings, so I’ll also use the word nude to talk more about the state of being physically nude (unclothed).

A couple of years ago you couldn’t have told me I would find myself sitting in a small wooden shack, thigh-to-thigh with 10 sweaty nude men who I had met the day before, in 100 degree heat (Celsius, mind you); each of us running bare-bum to the frozen lake and jumping into the hole we had cut. And I wouldn’t have believed you if you said I’d be loving every minute of it. But that’s exactly where I found myself last New Year’s Eve, getting cultured up in the Finnish sauna experience. Sauna was invented in Finland, and “sauna” is happens to be the only Finnish word imported into the English language. Most people have a sauna in their homes, and use it almost daily. Since moving to Finland in 2007, both my wife and I have been more nude than ever before in our lives, including our honeymoon (which featured heavily in nudity). This is more true for me than it is for me, she recalls bathing with her family and other periods of nudity as a girl, but I don’t personally have any recollection of being nude as a child, except for a few instances that I shall explain shortly. But I’m a bit European now. I wear mid-thigh speedos, and am completely comfortable being nude with members of the same sex. Going to the sauna is one of my favourite parts of the week, we do it at least weekly, those of you who’ve visited us will understand. I find being nude completely relaxing, freeing, and therapeutic.

Being naked, is somewhat of a different matter. Nudity only requires the removal of clothes, but nakedness requires the removal of much more: our personal shields, our walls of solitude, the barriers we put up to keep others at a safe distance. Surely all of who you who are married have been nude with your spouse, but how often are you genuinely naked with each other? How often do you deeply, humanly connect with the essence of who your spouse is? And beyond marriage, how often do we as people deeply, humanly connect with each other? As friends, couples, even family, how often do we let ourselves be truly vulnerable with each other? Last summer I read a book titled “Becoming a True Spiritual Community” by Larry Crabb, and it broke my heart for what our relationships could and should become (the book is focussed on the context of relationships, which make up the body of Christ). Imagine a time/place where our relationships are so honest, so raw and beautiful, so infused with Christ, that we literally pour living water into one another. Not by virtue of TRYING, but by living securely in Daddy’s love, abounding with the grace of his Son, and communing deeply with one another as friends. Just as the three members of The Trinity commune deeply with each other. What a vision.

Anyway, last summer God took us on through this revelation of relationship, as you can see in the pages of this blog. He’s lead us (my wife and son) out of all forms of organized religion and into a dynamic, breathing form of Christianity that we are constantly being challenged by, that my wife and I often disagree, pray, talk, and re-agree on, and are enjoying deeply. We have the gospel freedom to attend what others would call “church” and we do so periodically. We have a few extended families here (and other friends abroad) who are on the exact same page, and when we spend time together it is so life-giving that we dread the leaving. For those who fear that by leaving “the church” we are forsaking the fellowship of believes, that couldn’t be further from the truth! One thing that we are asking God for more of, is people who are like-minded with us in this regard. That is part of what I am writing about here.

In January our first child was born. Raising a child has the tendency to take you on a journey back through your own childhood… as any parent can attest to. Assumedly, your own upbringing was different to your spouses, so you run into all sorts of odd foibles and things that you never realized mattered to you. One topic that Maija and I were talking about recently was nudity in the family. I realised that I had no early experience of male or female nudity that I could recall, nothing in my family interactions or otherwise. Conversation with my Dad has confirmed that my parents were never naked with us, including not bathing with us (me and my 2 brothers). The only memories I have of experiencing nudity as a child, come from “playing doctor” with friends when we were 5-6 years old. Upon being found out and reprimanded, I was embarrassed and ashamed. I know my parents had no intention of shaming me, but having had no safe nudity in their own lives growing up, they had provided me with few sanctioned outlets for my childhood curiosity. I felt shame over my behaviour, which quickly carried over into shame over our bodies. When I went through puberty, I was naturally inquisitive, but still lacking any healthy experience with nudity of either gender, I turned to the internet to teach me about our bodies, where I quickly fell into an addiction to pornography (that lasted 10 years).

As Maija and I spoke about how we hoped to raise our boy (and future children), we both felt that exposure to healthy nudity in a safe context was important. I’ve spoken with my Dad about my upbringing and his, and he confirmed that he and my mother were not comfortable enough with their own nudity to share it with us, even when we were very young. How convenient though that we live in Finland, where families routinely, and friends occasionally go to sauna together. Public co-ed sauna facilities for adults are not uncommon, though not as widespread as some might assume; these are more commonly found in spa and hotel complexes. Sauna is part of the bathing ritual here, and it is not sexual in the least; I didn’t fully grasp this until we moved here and made it a regular part of our lives. Mixed gender, non-sexual nudity is really a non-issue in most of Europe, but to my New Zealand and North American cultural sensibilities, being naked with members of the opposite sex has been a bit taboo. Beyond the cultural acceptance issue, I couldn’t get around the fact that for me at least, the female form was completely sexualized. Which shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Literally the only females I have seen nude, other than my wife, are from pornography, and if it wasn’t for the porn it would have been the entire culture of sexualized youth-worship that is inflicted upon us all, from the youngest age. From billboards and advertising, from music videos to fashion magazines, to television and film and everything else in between, Western society is saturated with the sexualization of our bodies.

But we’ve been fed lies.

We’re living in the most clothed period of time history has ever seen, but are we any more modest? Are we any more moral? Are family values any more protected? Are the orphan, the widow, and the aged any better off? We reject nudity and say it’s immodest, but clothe our infant daughters in infant bikinis to hide what? We require women to wear shape-accentuating, body enhancing clothing that leave strategic parts to the imagination. As if our imaginations were so modest. Our society rejects those body types that don’t fit the mold sold by Parasuco and others, ignoring the fact that barely any of our population posses these “ideal” bodies. We reject the aged and infirm; heaven forbid our parents get sick and we have to take care of them some day. We’re even suspicious of our doctors seeing us naked; heaven forbid our wives develop breast cancer and have to expose their breasts for medical testing. We’re repulsed by the thought of anyone older than 35 in the nude, regardless of the fact that the median age of the developed world is 39. How unhealthy is our image of aging? How unhealthy is our image of the human body, of our own bodies?

But let’s turn back the clock. The Prophets of the Old Testament were identified by their nudity, and we know about King David being “even more undignified than this.” Athletes in ancient Greece and Sparta competed in the nude. The disciple Peter fished in the nude, and Christ was crucified in the nude (it wasn’t until 500 AD that his loins were covered in artistic renditions). Up until the 700s all baptisms were performed fully nude with mixed attendance, and up until the 1800s the majority of all swimming done by anyone in the world would have been nude. Up until the 1960’s even, swimming at the YMCA was always nude. Have you ever wondered how the Jews of Abraham’s day were so easily identified by their circumcision?
We have developed, thanks in large part to the Puritans and then Queen Victoria’s exporting of Puritan values to the Western world, a complete aversion to nudity in any social context. Nudity has become fully equated with sexuality, and many grow up, myself included, not appreciating the difference. But this is complete bollocks! Tribes still exist today who live in complete nudity, due to their climate. If you take your kids to the zoo, how do you describe why we are the only creatures on the planet wearing artificial clothing? We’re born nude, we bath nude, and anyone who has kids knows that children have absolutely no inhibitions about running around in the buff. If you believe in evolution you’ll appreciate that clothes didn’t attach onto us (and haven’t attached onto anything else). If you believe in Creation you’ll know that God created Adam and Eve nude (and their relationship with God was truly naked, and face to face), up until the serpent led them down a path of shame. The fact remains that our skin is waterproof, it’s flexible and elastic, and it responds over time to harshness, developing callouses as needed to protect the body. It’s covered in nerves that detect temperature change, allowing the body to regulate it’s own temperature. Being clothed is an unnatural state for our bodies.

I would like to suggest that we reject the lie that all nudity is sexual, and embrace the principle of good nudity in any safe context. I am not advocating that we become nudists; I am advocating an attitude shift in our hearts and minds towards the human body.

I would like to suggest also, that we reject the lie that we cannot be honest with people, that we must always hide our feelings and intentions, that we will be judged and ridiculed when our true personalities are made known, that we are alone. I want to humanly connect, to be vulnerable, to bring life, and to give and receive healing through my relationships, and I believe this cannot happen without nakedness of soul and spirit.

As my children grow up, I want them to be free from the shame I grew up with. I want their curiosity to have a safe outlet. I want their dreams and desires to be made known. I want them to know spiritual life, I want them to believe in the God of their parents not because we have told them to, but because they have seen, and tasted, and heard.  I want my children to be comfortable in their own skin, and to value and respect the bodies and lives of others. I want my children to understand that their bodies change, and keep changing, and that these changes are good and not to be feared or demonized. I want my family to commune with one another, to bring life and healing and restoration to one another.

And I want to live righteously. I want to appreciate and respect the human form, as God’s finest creation. I want to live a life free from lust and temptation. I want to live a life that perpetuates the truth about our humanity, about out bodies and about our emotions, about our need for one another.

My wife and I wish to pursue nakedness of spirit in our relationships with others. We wish to be rich in our relationships, to be overwhelmed by the love and communion we share with our family and friends.

And we are coming to believe that by sharing nakedness of body in our relationships with others, we may find our friendships enriched, our children raised healthily and our families strengthened, our perspectives on the body and on aging kept wholesome, and the powers of negative self-image, the powers of lust and pornography, and the power of shame, all be greatly diminished.

bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark

Should the Church teach tithing?

0

I’ve finally finished reading Russell Earl Kelley’s book on tithing, “Should the Church teach Tithing?”. It’s an incredibly detailed, in-depth look at every scripture referenced to support tithing, and then every scripture used to promote higher New Testament standards. It’s probably not an easy read for most, it’s taken me 4 months to slug through 274 pages, but it is incredibly worthwhile, and many revelations can be gained from it that don’t relate to tithing or giving.

Update: I’ve run into some semantic issues discussing this with people. It’s worth nothing that tithing and giving are NOT synonymous. Tithing is here defined as a required tenth of your income paid regularly to “God” (via paying to a church, or however you tithe). Voluntarily giving of your money is totally different, so the two concepts should be clear in your head before you read my review, or the book itself.

I’ll sum it up for you. The answer is no, the church should definitely not be teaching tithing.

 

There is no Old Testament/Old Covenant scripture concerning tithing that applies to believers under the New Covenant since Christ’s death and resurrection (completion of the Law). Tithing was in fact the cornerstone of the Mosaic law and temple system, so there is no part of Mosaic tithing left over for Christians. For those who tithe on the example of Abraham giving to Melchizedek, there are chapters in there for you too. The people present and the language used is studied to question who Melchizedek really was. Melchizedek’s reappearance in Hebrews is analyzed also, asking whether Christ is truly the historical Melchizedek, or rather a typical (type of) Melchizedek.

As far as I’m concerned, you can leave out all the complex analysis, and look at the way Christ and the early church lived and the example they left behind. What we know of Jesus indicates he was generous beyond all others, giving sacrificially, even unto death. What we know of Paul indicates that if anyone would know about tithing, its role in the law, and its subsequent role in the church, it would have been him. And yet there’s no record of Jesus, the disciples, or Paul tithing -  Mosaic, Abrahamic or otherwise.

Christianity is about relationship with Christ. Relationship doesn’t have room for percentages, binding numbers or accounts. These things are against the very nature of relationship; they are “lawful” in nature. We are no longer under any law, but the “higher law” of love. Consequently, the love of Christ calls us to a higher standard of giving.

Giving that is joyous and cheerful, and comes from a desire to see the needs of others met.
Giving that is regular, it continues, from the desire above.
Giving that costs us, that is sacrificial, that requires us to live without personal excess.

Russell Kelley sums it up this way in the final chapter of his book:

“A free democratic society will out-give (and out-produce) a forced labor society. The Apostle Paul received neither tithes nor any full-time support. He used his gospel freedom to refuse wages, yet he was perhaps history’s most successful church builder and evangelist. Likewise, the Christian church, with it’s freedom in Christ, will out-give and out-serve Old Covenant Israel…
…A Christian does not obey God in order to please him. Instead a Christian obeys God because he has been saved, because his nature is changed, because he is studying to know God’s will, and because he is yielded to the Holy Spirit. Believers who are being transformed into Christ’s likeness by learning sound doctrine want to give as Christ gave. With a burden for lost souls, they respond by giving from a sincere desire and from their best ability. They give their lives, their time and their money.”

2nd Corinthians 8 has this to say (emphasis mine):

11 Now you should finish what you started. Let the eagerness you showed in the beginning be matched now by your giving. Give in proportion to what you have. 12 Whatever you give is acceptable if you give it eagerly. And give according to what you have, not what you don’t have. 13 Of course, I don’t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. 14 Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal.

Openness, candidness and honesty

0

For as long as I can remember, I have valued open and clear communication. I strive to communicate myself clearly and concisely, and I am frustrated when I fail to communicate myself, or when I witness mis-communication. I firmly believe that friendships, families, corporations, and governments function BEST with the minimal limits to their communication, and a fundamental embrace of openness, rather than closed-ness.

At work, I strive to keep open communication with my team especially, but also with the general staff. I encourage my team to always be honest, and when they don’t know an answer, to be comfortable saying so. Though it’s not always easy, I have found incredible freedom in owning my failings upfront, and acknowledging when I drop the ball. (It helps that I have good bosses, btw.)

Socially, I try to never sweep things under the rug. If someone has hurt me, or I have hurt someone, I generally work to specifically resolve the issue. I want to talk about it. I want to bring light to it. If I have had a crappy day, I will tell you. If you have had a crappy day, I hope that you would tell me. I value candidness above politeness and “not wanting to burden someone.” My heart weeps just a little bit when a friend retells a painful event with honesty, and their spouse or a mutual friend sugar-coats the same story to me later on.

 

In our communities, slowly crawling towards Christ-infused life as we are, surely we must embrace openness, clarity of communication and feeling, and honesty in our weaknesses and our failings. We must remove all pretense from our relationships. I do believe that as managers, leaders, fathers and grandfathers, we must abandon our sense of entitlement, our right to being respected for our position or our achievements. If my children grow up to love and respect me, I pray that it is not because I am their Father, or because of any other social construct, but solely because I have loved and respected them first. And if my children continue to love and respect me throughout our lives together, I pray that it is not because of some single event of particular poignancy, but because I am continuing to love and respect them daily.

Surely our communities can come out of the cloak of structure, of authority systems, and simply be open… equal… honest… raw… ugly… beautiful… loving.

The Naked Pastor has a great post today on the importance of communication in our communities, and the incredible risks we subject ourselves to when communication fails.

I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. It is a fascinating read. Basically, his thesis is that what makes a person succeed is not necessarily or only his or her ingenuity, energy, determination, or vision, but a series of events and legacies that this person is given. A great deal depends on chances this person is offered and takes. In other words, Gladwell is talking about the importance of our communities on whether we fail or succeed.

The chapter I found the most intriguing was about plane crashes. Briefly, it has been concluded that most plane crashes are not because of one catastrophic problem, but the accumulation of smaller ones. It is also concluded that the more people are actively involved in the flight of the plane, from the captain to the first officer to the flight engineer to the flight attendants, the fewer accidents occur. So, when little problems occur, many eyes and hands are on deck to help solve these issues. If these are managed, accidents will be diverted. So, it is a community effort that ensures the safety of the flight. It is absolutely critical, therefore, that there is clear communication between the flight crew when problems arise. It is a community effort that gives the captain and the airline an accident-free career.

In the nineties, Korea Air had so many plane crashes that it lost its status as an airline. A professional researched the problem and discovered that the culprit was “mitigated speech”, that is, downplaying or sugarcoating the meaning of what is being said. Because of the Koreans’ deep and traditional respect for authority, subordinate flight crew members would never ever try to instruct, correct or challenge a flight crew member higher up the rungs of authority. Once mitigated speech was corrected, Korea Air rebounded and became the respected airline it is today.

It seems that flight crew members today are trained on how to communicate clearly what they mean. There are precise levels of urgency and clarity. Also, it’s best for the first officer to fly the plane with the captain in the co-pilot’s seat. That way the captain feels comfortable challenging the first officer if something goes wrong. And everyone on the flight crew has authority when they notice a problem arise. Plus, everyone speaks to each other on a first name basis, avoiding labels that carry the intimidating weight of authority. Even those who have the cultural legacy of unquestioning respect for authority learn to divest themselves of this during training. Korean pilots are now among the most respected and accident-free in the world.

If we are as concerned about the “safety” of the people within our communities, then I find Gladwell’s insights applicable. The church has a cultural legacy of deep respect towards authority. When I came to this church from the Presbyterian, I moved from an ecclesiastical authority structure to a personal authority structure that is just as dangerous. Authority, authority, authority… I hear it all the time. The religious cultural legacy I come from demands that I not question authority. And it makes me wonder if this is the cause of so many fatal church accidents. Many become proficient at mitigated speech for fear of not just challenging authority, but even upsetting authority or hurting it’s feelings! It has taken me years, with limited success, to work against this unhealthy and even dangerous deference to authority. I think if we want to see religious communities succeed, we’d be wise to apply a few principals:

  1. No more mitigated speech. When it comes to the health of the community, direct communication matters. Enable people to mean what they say and say what they mean without fear of repercussions.
  2. Empower others to fly. Decentralize power and decision-making. Share the welfare of the community.
  3. Everyone on a first name basis. Remove all residue from former authoritative paradigms. Today, a lot of what is called post-modern or emergent is basically cooler and hipper mutations of our old accident-prone structures.
  4. If you’ve ever sat by the emergency exit on a flight, you know you are essentially emergency staff if a problem occurs. So… teams! Everyone is involved! Everyone can, if they wish, participate in the health and welfare of the community.

From nakedpastor’s Cultural Legacy and Mitigated Speech

With, not for – another thought

0

What if Jesus hanged out with prostitutes, corrupt tax collectors, and other sinners… not because he primarily wanted to convert them, or because he wanted to illustrate some lesson, allegory or principle…

but because they were his friends, and he loved them.

Thoughts inspired by nakedpastor.

The church and homosexuality

0

I just finished reading 2 excellent essays by gay Christians, examining the two opposing viewpoints within the church, and especially the gay Christian community. I love reading honest, well researched and well thought out arguments. The two viewpoints referred to are thus:

I believe that homosexuality is an “issue” that remains un-dealt-with, in much of Christianity today. I know of too many homosexual people who love Jesus, who have had grievous sins committed against them by others who profess love for Christ, because of their homosexuality. It saddens me. As is pointed out in one of the essays, regardless of your viewpoint, homosexuality may be THE issue – like slavery in the past – that Western Christianity as a whole currently faces, or isn’t facing because of ignorance to the necessity of facing it.

How’s that for a run on sentence? I, like CS Lewis, use run on sentences to full effect. But enough of me. I highly recommend that you read these two essays. They are long, by casual internet reading standards, but they are well written and I believe do closely and fairly examine both sides of the argument.

May God lead you to love and peace.

With, not for

1

I look forward to the day when people, en masse, realise that they don’t need to (and can’t) do anything to earn God’s favour, and start to simply live with Christ (rather than for Christ).

This is from Wayne Jacobson’s book – He Loves Me – via my good friend Dallas. The emphasis is mine.

As you grow increasingly certain that his love for you is not connected to your performance, you will find yourself released from the horrible burden of doing something for him. You’ll realize that your greatest ideas and most passionate deeds will fall far short of what he really wants to do through you.

I used to be driven to do something great for God. I volunteered for numerous opportunities and worked hard in the hopes that some book I was writing, some church I was planting, or some organization I was helping would accomplish great things for God. While I think God used my misguided zeal in spite of myself, nothing I did ever rose to the level of my expectations. Instead, my pursuits seemed to distract me from God, consume my life, and leave me stressed out.

I’m not driven anymore. I haven’t tried to do anything great for God in more than a decade, and yet I have seen him use my life in ways that always exceed my expectations. What changed? I did, by his grace.

My desire to do something great for God served me far more than it ever did him. It kept me too busy to enjoy him and distracted me from the real ministry opportunities he brought across my path each day.

I used to start my day laying out my plans before God and seeking his blessing on them. How silly! Why would I want God to be the servant of my agenda? God’s plans for my day far exceed mine. I can almost hear him now as I awaken: “Wayne, I’m going to touch some people today. Do you want to come along?”

It’s amazing how gentle that is, but all the more powerful because it is. I don’t have to go. God’s work won’t be thwarted by my lack of participation. He will touch people anyway, but I wouldn’t miss it for the world. He does things I’ve never dreamed of and uses me in ways I could never conceive. His focus on touching people instead of managing programs has revolutionized my view of ministry. It requires no less diligence on my part but directs that diligence in far more fruitful endeavors.

If you’ve never know the joy of simply living in God’s acceptance instead of trying to earn it, your most exciting days in Christ are ahead of you. People who learn to live out of a genuine love relationship with the God of the universe will live in more power, more joy, and more righteousness than anyone motivated by fear of his judgement.

The Ten Commandments

0

It’s become my conviction that fundamentally we are not supposed to follow the Ten Commandments. I mentioned this in my post about The Shack… the perspective that I fundamentally follow Christ, and he may lead me where he wills. I want to dig into that a bit here, because I think choosing to follow the Ten Commandments is at odds with choosing to follow Christ.

My three main thoughts on this are:

  1. It can move the focus off Christ and his grace, and back into performance based law keeping.
  2. They’re too easy. The Ten Commandments are too easily kept… and allow us to fall into the trap of pride and “arrival”.
  3. God didn’t need The Ten Commandments, or want us to live under them at all.

 

We are new creations in Christ, and the Law holds no water for us. Christ completed the Law, fulfilled it absolutely, so while we are with Christ the Law is completed for us. It is finished. Peter in Acts goes as far as saying “Don’t tempt the Lord” regarding Christian Gentile commitment to the Law.

Too easy… I was battling with this yesterday, as a good friend who I respect and often disagree with wrote an article on the Ten Commandments. It occurred to me that I’ve taught children to follow the Ten Commandments, and I know I was raised to follow them as well. And yet, we have the rich young ruler of Matthew come to Christ saying “I’ve done all this. What next?” Christ tells him to sell all he has, and give the money to the poor, something we understand the young man can’t bring himself to do. This is crucial to me… the fact that he has followed these laws to the letter, but his heart hasn’t changed. He’s dotted every i and crossed every t, all the while missing the point completely. We can keep the Ten Commandments and think we are justified, think we have arrived at some level of obedience or right-living, and yet have missed it completely. I don’t believe it’s in God’s character for us to miss him. He is continually drawing us to himself.

When I look at the Old Testament, I’m struck by the progression of things. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. If God created things like this, I have to believe this was his primary intention for life and humanity. That this was how it was meant to be, always and forever. At this point man had 1 command, from God, not to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To me this is God saying “Will you trust me? Will you trust that I know best? Will you depend on me, to lead you where it’s worthy to be lead?” But the enemy whispers to us, saying that we can make those decisions for ourselves; that we are a better judge of our own future, and independence isn’t such a bad thing. And so starts the slow but sure spiral into madness.

Fast forward a couple of thousand years, and we have a group of people God has called his own. He’s led them out of Egypt and been providing for their every need. And yet, the people Israel have no desire to personally interact with God. They’re more than happy for Moses to represent them, and to give them a list of do’s and don’ts so that they feel they’re on the right track. They don’t want the interaction, they fundamentally don’t want the relationship. Look at Romans 9:30-33. So God says “Have it your way. Your hearts are turned away from me, so if you want to be justified here is a Law you must keep.” But the New Testament tells us God never intended for The Law! Just like Israel later demanded they have a king, like the nations around them, God says “Fine… but if you want one you’re going to live with the consequences.” Are we not a remarkably disobedient species? We want our own way, continually, and then we want that way to be easy. We complain when we can’t keep the Law, or when our man-made king tramples us under foot.

Here, for me, is the point. Christ comes, lives a sinless life, allows his blood to be shed as a sacrifice, and completes the Law once and for all. He offers each of us his blood, to cover us as well, if we will just enter relationship with him. If we will just return to the garden with God, where he’s still saying “Will you trust me? Will you trust that I know best? Will you depend on me, to lead you where it’s worthy to be lead?”

This trumps everything else. Will we move away from our independance and into dependance? Will we give up our self help, our self improvement? The rules we choose to live by don’t help us in that relationship, they’re fundamentally at odds, because we’re trying to improve ourselves, trying to independantly become a better person. Christ isn’t calling us to become better people, he’s calling us to love him. And he’s calling us to walk with him. Will we trust that he knows best? Will we trust that he will provide everything that we need to continue in relationship with him, to go deeper?

Truth

0

I like the idea that:

Something isn’t true because it’s in the Bible; it’s in the Bible because it’s true.

The Shack

0

I just finished reading The Shack, by William Young. I was a little wary of reading it, solely because it’s becoming popular in Christian circles, and I find that’s a recipe for poor quality, at least in music. Perhaps I need to repent of judging the Church… We’ll come back to that one day.

Anyway, I didn’t want to enjoy it for the reason I just stated, but after an unbiased read, I actually loved it! I would go as far as saying it’s a novel I would recommend to anyone/everyone. It captures the loving, holy, just, all-powerful nature of God in a way I’ve seldom seen written. The God of The Shack is absolutely the God I have experienced in my personal life, and in the Scriptures. So kind, so good, so desiring to take care of his children, and so worthy of our praise.

There are a few minor negatives to the book, and those all revolve around the writing quality. It does come across as a first novel, which I believe it is. That wasn’t enough to drive me to distraction, and after the first couple of chapters I didn’t notice so much. I do know a couple of folks who were quite distracted by the writing quality, so do bear that in mind if you’re editorially inclined.

I’ll spare you a full review. I don’t think it warrants one (it’s just that good!) But what I do want to do is respond to a couple of articles I have read, and bring attention to some conversation surrounding this novel. This is by no means exhaustive, rather me getting my thoughts out of my head, and for the benefit of those who have provided me these articles, and are awaiting a response.

 

Deceived by a counterfeit “Jesus” – The twisted “truths” of The Shack & A Course in Miracles
by Berit Kjos – February 14, 2008

Disclaimer: I’m not going to respond to anything regarding “A Course in Miracles”, because I don’t know anything about it.

To put it bluntly, I’m not sure Mr Kjos finished reading The Shack. If he did read it, perhaps it was the last in his weekly list of books to review, and so he skimmed it. In his analysis he picks and chooses lines he has a theological problem with, removing them completely from the context they were placed within, and offering no hint for the reader that any context existed. This is a dangerous way to read, especially considering many read The Bible this way. (The use of chapters and verses and different translations has allowed many of us to pick and choose, cut and paste, and allows us to build a theology of individual verses – stripped of context – that we find satisfying. Did you know chapters and verses were only added to New Testament in the 300s and 1500s AD, respectively?)

In reading over the comments on the article, where people strongly agree and strongly disagree with the reviewer, my heart breaks for those who feel compelled to prop up the image of God first as the Mighty One, the Just One, even the Angry One. The truth is that God is mighty and just, and holy, but he can defend himself in those things. To read The Shack, and complain that God isn’t portrayed as angrily or as all-powerfully as he in the Old Testament, shows to me an unfortunate misunderstanding of the entire Old Testament, and a painful issue in your own heart. If having read the book you cannot respond to the loving picture of Christ and his Father, so beautifully told in a way we can “all” appreciate, I fear that you are one who needs to message of this book the most! I’ve heard people say “I didn’t like The Shack because I couldn’t identify with the God that Mack meets.” If that’s you, I wonder if you need to meet a new God – the God of the Bible. I don’t say that with condescension, I say that having experienced deeper and deeper revelation over the years, that God is truly loving, and longs for intimate relationship with us, and that the Bible does reveal this.

Responses to the review

Responses to the question: “Is the Shack Heresy?”

A Review of The Shack
by Tim Challies – May 2008

Having read through Challies review, and subsequent follow-up, I run into a fundamental problem with his position.

Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel – a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.

There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.

I have come to the place in my own spiritual life where I believe sin is entirely relative. Right and wrong, is restrictively relative, in fact, to my relationship with Christ.  Anything that does not push me towards Christ, takes me away from Christ, and is sin.  And that’s it. No more complicated than that. The 10 commandments? That’s a list of things that WILL take you away from Christ, he has promised as much. Do I follow the 10 commandments? Fundamentally, no. I follow Christ, and because I follow Christ, I will do my best to follow what he has asked me to, including the 10 Commandments. Mr Challies seems to me a black and white believer in a static list of right/wrong that we must all adhere to.

I personally will adhere to Christ. I believe that our relationship with Christ IS placed over the Bible. The Bible does not exist for the sake of existing, but for the sake of enriching our relationship, and giving us (at minimum) a backstory and a context for this relationship. I believe that is what life is about, so to hold the Bible in the place of prominence in our relationship with God is backwards. Our relationship with God should be held in prominence, and the Bible can assist in that process, if we have eyes to see, and ears to here. (Much of my teenage years were spent trying to figure out the Bible, which I felt contradictory at the time, and not enriching my relationship at all.)

So I fundamentally start on a different page to Mr Challies, which causes the rest his theology to not make sense to me. He states that due to the fall of man from grace, we must always approach God through a mediator, and so direct personal experience from God cannot and will not take place. I believe that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cross, and the tearing of the temple curtain when Jesus died. We no longer need a mediator, because Christ has mediated. Period. It is finished.

Mr Challies feels that the Cross is lacking from The Shack, ironically, despite numerous mentions of the crucifixion by Papa and Jesus. His arguments here are purely subjective, so I won’t detail them, suffice to say that I’m confident he has interpreted things far from the author’s meaning. The author’s meaning is clarified on numerous blogs and videos, Google it.

In The Shack, God is portrayed as an African American woman at one point, and as a fatherly man at another point. When he discusses the Trinity, Mr Challies takes serious offense at this: God being represented in any physical form. He goes as far as saying the Creator cannot be made part of his creation. While I follow his logic to a degree, I must ask the question of what Moses saw and experienced when he was with God on the mountain, and what it was that burned Moses face when God walked past. Even without those questions, to believe the portrayal of God in a physical form for any purpose to be fundamentally incriminating, says to me that Mr Challies is more concerned about the few scriptures that warn of graven images, then the bulk of scripture that talks of God’s love for us. Again, his relationship with each of us is foremost in his mind, I believe. That love allows him to reveal himself to us in any way he sees fit. Who am I to tell God that he can’t appear in human form, if that’s what he knows it will take to reach me? That is his prerogitive, and I will continue to love him no matter what. I will not construct an icon to worship in place of God… but we’re not even talking about that!

I appreciated what this reader had to say:

 

“It’s clear that you read into the text various theological positions that that author has clearly and explicitly repudiated (specifically with regard to the Trinity, the Atontement[sic] and Universalism – search on Google and YouTube for his statements) and I don’t doubt that when you “see” these things in the text, you experience a real and emotional aversion to them, but I think you are lacking circumspection here.

The book itself is a touching and meaningful devotional work that does so much to oppose, in an accessible way, the constant drumbeat of secularist and anti-theistic rhetoric regarding God’s love and compassion in the face of suffering. From God Is Not Great to God’s Problem, the reading public has been assaulted with the challenge of reconciling the of evil[sic] and suffering of humanity with a good and loving and powerful God. The Shack is certainly no point-by-point refutation of these bad philosophies (I recommend several of Marilyn McCord Adam’s books for that), but it is an accessible treatment of numbing evil being reconciled with an all-powerful, beneficient creator in the context of a human story.”

At the root, I think Mr Challies has written from his heart and has strong convictions. However, he strikes me, as Dr Larry Crabb puts it, as “a woman reading romantic poetry on her wedding night, and never getting into bed.” He misses the point of the novel. I would encourage Mr Challis to continue to seek deeper revelation, which we know to be a lifelong process. I commend him for his in-depth review and thorough analyses based on what he perceives to be Bible truth. I however believe some of what he consideres clear Bible truth is simply his perspective, and not God’s perspective at all. But we know God’s an opportunist, and will work with whatever he gets.

via Tastyspirit.com's RSS Feed
Go to Top