One more post about The Shack: with "something else" to consider

Well, The Shack has really been a hot topic of late. I first came across the book when a reading group from our church chose the book as their current read. This small group of women are reading with a critical eye and with a bent toward apologetics. I became troubled, however, as I looked beyond this group of Bereans (Acts 17:11) to the wider popularity and response to the book in Baptist life and the evangelical community at large.

I am troubled by the number of people, even people with a good deal of influence, that have no problem with the fact that the book undermines key tenets of the faith including the nature of God, the trinity, salvation, and the exclusivity of Christ. I won’t take the time to point out all the specific problems with the book here. Multiple reviews have done that already and can be found by a quick google search. As troubling as the book and its positive reception among many evangelicals is, however, I am equally troubled by something else.

Before I get to the “something else,” let me offer a brief rebuttal of four common arguments in defense of The Shack. After that, I’ll get to the “something else” which is not being discussed to any great length and is, perhaps, the crux of the issue for us who are evangelicals. A fair warning – this is a long post. If you’re already convinced about The Shack, or if there is any danger of losing you along the way, please skip ahead to the “something else.” I have marked it with a line of asterisks in the text. In fact, go ahead and skip to that now. If you still have nothing better to do, you can come back and read the rebuttal section later.

Here are my four rebuttal points:

1. “The Shack is a work of fiction.” – So what? Fiction has always presented a particular worldview, often for the purpose of promoting that worldview. Fiction, historically, has been a means by which the author can indirectly teach his or her opinion or message under the guise of a genre that is defended as innocuous. So The Shack is fiction. So is Animal Farm, 1984, A Brave New World, Anna Karenina, and everything Karen Kingsbury has ever written. Each of those works has a worldview agenda, even though they are works of fiction. Why should The Shack get a free pass just because of its genre?

2. “The Shack is no different than the Left Behind series or the Chronicles of Narnia.” Leaving behind the fact that these two examples are different forms of fiction writing, in terms of their promotion of a worldview, The Shack is absolutely different. The Left Behind series, for instance, indeed does promote or at least fall in line with a particular theological viewpoint. The issues at stake there, however, are not “first order” issues. Rather, the point of dispute is eschatology. An area, at least in my denomination, in which there is a great degree of freedom to disagree. A similar argument could be made concerning the Narnia books. In The Shack, the issues at stake are not peripheral or denominational, they cut to the core of the Christian faith. Much of the dialogue promotes a worldview that is not inline with historic orthodox Christianity. In that sense, it is completely different than the other popular Christian works with which it is often compared.

3. “We should trust Christians to use discernment. Warning people about a book is a form of legalism.” I have put two issues into one here. First, it is not legalism to expose the contents of the book, warn people of its dangers, encourage people not to read or if they do to do so with a heavy dose of discernment. Rather, it is an act of Christian love and part of the duty of true Christian fellowship. Legalism would say “you’re sinning if you read this book.” I do think it is unwise for many to read this book. I am not, however, laying down a legalistic requirement that Christians not read it. Further, warning people about The Shack is not a matter of trust. On the one hand, I would expect Christians to warn other Christians of dangers of all kinds. More importantly for me, as a pastor, it is my duty to warn my people of danger. The Bible clearly requires pastors to “guard the flock” (Acts 20:28) and correct and protect the church from false teaching. The Shack, whatever its intent, contains false teaching. For that reason, Christians and conscientious pastors should warn others of such.

4. “The Shack has helped me understand the problem of evil.” On its surface, this is the hardest for me to answer. The reason it is hard for me is that, I have always been a “chew up the meat, spit out the bones” kind of guy. It is always been my practice to learn from others with whom I disagree, even on essential issues. That practice is not without its exception, however. When I learn from others whose worldview is different than mine, I do not do so as my primary means of discovering an issue. That is, if I am studying the problem of evil, for example, I do not go first to a liberal theologian to find an answer. After studying the Scripture, I first look to find solid orthodox and evangelical teaching on the issue. Then, after I am thoroughly grounded, I look to others outside my context to see if there is any additional insight or questions that remain unanswered. All with a heavy dose of discernment. What does that have to do with The Shack? Many Christians are treating the book as a new “first source” on the problem of evil. Thus, they read or recommend the book and take in with it all of its false teaching merely because, presumably, the book does a good job on the problem of evil. Perhaps the book does have some helpful elements. But as one parishioner asked, if I may be crude for just a moment, “How much dog poop would have to be in the recipe before you wouldn’t eat one of my brownies?” There are better and more theologically sound books, fiction and non-fiction, that do a good job addressing the problem of evil without having to resort to a book with questionable theology on primary issues.

***************
There is something else to discuss. One important question remains – a question which those who are adamantly opposed to the book must address:
WHY IS THIS BOOK SO POPULAR?!?!?

Self-published books don’t soar to the top of best-seller lists for no reason. Obviously, there is something in this book that appeals to a large audience, both evangelical and otherwise. What is it, and why is it important for the church?

The answer may be profound. And, admittedly, I may not be right – although I think I am. The answer may even hold a wider key to many of the issues we have been discussing in the evangelical blogosphere including the decline of the SBC, the plateau in baptisms, the trend against denominationalism, and the growing bias against traditional evangelicalism. I think the answer does indeed have application for reclaiming unchurched Christians and reaching non-believers with the gospel. So, why is the book so popular?...

The Shack offers people what the church, by and large, does not – hope for and acceptance of messed up people.

Mack is a messed up person. He has real hurts. He has experienced real pain. He does not act and think the way a Christian ought to act and think. In fact, he questions and even blames God for what has happened to him. People relate to Mack. They relate to the pain and hurt and struggle and questions Mack has. And they find from Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu the kind of understanding and acceptance that is, for whatever reason, missing in the church.

Our church members are made up of mostly “respectable” people. Most churches where I live are made up of people who have been Christians and faithful followers for a long time. We have, at least in our experience, much in common with the older brother in the parable of the lost son. While we might not have his attitude, we can honestly say “these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command” (Luke 15:29, ESV). Many have never struggled with the “big” sins, or have managed to keep our struggles a secret. As a byproduct of our faithful lifelong commitment to Christ, however, we have little understanding of people who have problems and often don’t know how to respond.

Like Simon the Pharisee, we are disconcerted and often privately critical of persons who struggle with sin. We don’t get how a person can be a Christian and have depression or other emotional issues. We have no sympathy for men who battle lust and addiction to pornography, persons recovering from drug and alcohol dependence, singles who struggle with sexual abstinence, people contemplating suicide, divorce, or abortion, persons who continually make poor life choices, or persons who just have not reached our level of spiritual maturity. Even when our attitude is right, we don’t often offer people real help. Our spiritual arsenal is a list of proof texts, ought statements, and abstract moralisms. We have no real practical solutions or action steps. We do not offer ongoing emotional support and walking alongside struggling persons as a friend and brother. Our approach to sin is “don’t do it.”

Similarly, The Shack, for all its faults, communicates with people where they are. It allows Mack to be where he is in his struggle and does not condemn him for asking the big questions nor does it leave him without any direction. Our churches, however, often offer little in the way of real answers, real comfort, or ongoing care for hurting people. We are at a loss for how to deal with people who question God after the loss of loved one, people with chronic pain or conditions that are ongoing, widows and widowers who struggle with loneliness, single parents who struggle financially just to get by, persons struggling from the pain of divorce, adult victims of sexual abuse, the list goes on and on. We know instinctively that the Bible has answers for hurting, messed up people, but we struggle moving from the abstract to the concrete. Even when we have the right answers, somehow we are not communicating those answers effectively, nor approaching people with the kind of love and care that we ought to. When we are approached with real problems, our church answers can often be trite, shallow, cliché, insider language. We either grow impatient when people’s problems are not quickly resolved or we just forget that our brother or sister is hurting.

Because we tend to be program-driven rather than families of genuine koinonia, people become cogs in the machine that is church growth. People with problems, struggles, and issues don’t fit the machine. We don’t know what to do with them. They leave the church or are never reached because of sheer neglect.

We think that we are a friendly, open, and inviting community – and in our hearts, I believe we are. The perception from those on the outside, however, is that the church is a place where you can go if you have it all together or if you can hide the fact that you don’t. The lost world views us as bigots, homophobes, mysoginists, and, well, jerks. A growing number of unchurched Christians view the church as unforgiving, unaccepting, irrelevant and unhelpful for those who are dealing with deep and complex issues. We forget that we are messed up people too and are in desperate need of Jesus Christ.

I am not offering this as some kind of cynical prophet who wants to rail against the traditional church. I am part of the “traditional” church. This essay is in many ways a reflection of my own shortcomings as a Christian and minister. I offer this essay as a man who sees a disconnect in our churches and in my own ministry between the truths of the gospel we proclaim and the application of those truths to real lives. I see a disconnect between the biblical idea of koinonia and the practical outworking of relationships in the church and my own life. I desire to see the church be what it was meant to be and offer real hope for real lives.

All this means, then, that the response to The Shack needs to be two-sided. Not only must we warn of its dangers, we must seek to communicate truth in a clear and compelling way and come along side hurting messed up people. It is time for pastors, myself included, to really do the hard work of contextualization and quit using the same empty rhetoric with which we are familiar but which holds little significance for many of our hearers. Its time to reach out to people with genuine love and compassion and the investment that real relationship requires. Its time for us to see people the way God sees them. Its time to move beyond mere surface acquaintances with people who have it all together and join one another as fellow ministers of Christ on the journey that is the Christian life, with no brother or sister left behind.

I am not done thinking and writing on the issue of doctrinal fidelity or true missional Christianity and biblical koinonia. Neither will I be content to leave this issue to words on a blog rather than an earnest outworking of these concepts in my own life and ministry. In my mind, this balance is the issue of our time. We must fight for doctrinal and biblical fidelity, but we must also work hard to be bring the gospel to real people where they are and truly to grow together as followers of Jesus Christ. If there is a future for the evangelical church, we must get this right.

Weekend Reading for Missional Christians

Friends,

Here are a couple blog posts I recommend:

David Sills, on his blog Culturality and Missiology, has posted a compelling essay that deserves wide readership. I strongly encourage you to read "Has Anybody Seen Our Missionary Heroes?" May we live up to the standard set in this post. May God raise up a generation of missions leaders.

Also, Larry Baker has posted preliminary findings presented by Chuck Lawless on the habits of pastors of high impact churches. The official report will be released this spring. The findings may not surprise you, but they may convict you. Read the post here.

Blessings!
-- Todd

A Driving Conviction about Evangelism: Essentials of a Missional Church, part 1

It is surprising to me how many believers go through their Christian life with little or no concern for reaching people with the gospel. While teaching a discipleship course on evangelism at my church last fall, one member, a leader in the church, commented that he really did not have a burden for the lost. He admitted that he had never thought of evangelism as an important aspect of his Christian faith. I am thankful that he was candidly honest about where he was. Unfortunately, this man is not an anomaly. His viewpoint is far too common and in many churches is the norm. Multiply that perspective by 150 church members and you have a partial answer for why a church is not effectively reaching their community for Christ.

It is a good thing for churches to be concerned about the discipleship of their members. It is important for churches to teach their members the truths of Scripture and help them grow in faith and in the image of Christ. However, such discipleship must include teaching believers to be missional Christians. How can we claim to be like Jesus if we neglect his very mission?

If a church wants to fulfill the Great Commission, it will require first that its members share the heart of Jesus for the lost he came to save. We must share the heart of Jesus who wept for Jerusalem (Luke 18:41). We must follow the model of Paul whose heart was for the salvation of his fellow Jews (Rom 9:1-3; 10:1). We must be compelled by the love of Christ for a lost world and take on the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:14, 18).

Still, in many churches, evangelism is something we talk about and list among other Christian duties. As Russell Moore quipped in Southern Seminary’s chapel last fall, we know we should evangelize in the same way we know we should floss. Until evangelism ceases to be a Christian virtue that we have not yet achieved and becomes the driving passion of our church and personal ministry, we will never fulfill the purpose God has set for us. To become a missional church, we must have a passion for the Great Commission – reaching persons with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the grand theme of Scripture. It should be our theme as well.

Five Essentials of a Missional Church

The following is an outline I have been developing concerning evangelism and missions in the local church. I intend to blog about each of these points over the next couple weeks as well as offer suggestions for implementing them. For now, here is a summary of my thinking. Please feel free, as we go along, to offer your comments, additions, suggestions, etc. (Sidebar: In my view, verbal witness is primary and essential but should also be accompanied by the kinds of works described in Matt 25:31-46. Also, fulfilling the GC includes initial conversion as well as establishing of believers in the faith.)
_____

To be effective in Great Commission work, a local church ought to have the following:

1. A deep conviction about evangelism. The church must develop a heart for the lost and a passion for the gospel.

2. A church culture that in which fulfilling the Great Commission is central to the mission of the church. This priority should be evident in every aspect of church life.

3. An equipping ministry that trains believers to effectively share their faith and use their gifts in kingdom work.

4. Sufficient opportunities to be involved in missions and evangelism.

5. Complete dependence on the Holy Spirit for the success of the mission.

I will break up a more detailed discussion of these points over several posts. In the mean time, feel free to comment. (For those that prefer an alliterated list, here you go: To be truly missional, a church must have a Driving Conviction, a Dynamic Culture, a Developing Competence, Deliberate Connections, and a Dependent Confidence.)

Blessings!

-- Todd

My Baby is 10 Today

Today, my first-born turns ten years old. This is her first day as “a double-digit.” Like most parents whose kids grow up, I wonder where the time went and realize how quickly life passes us by. It is at these times that certain passages of Scripture come to mind and seem to have special significance. Passages such as,

“See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” Eph 5:15-16 NKJV

and

“teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Psalms 90:12 NKJV

Our days on earth are not infinite and we must be careful to use them wisely. This means as a parent, my days with my children are limited. I only have a little time to bring them up in the Lord, lead them to faith and growth in Christ, and teach them the skills to live a Christian life. This is something I have been thinking about (and teaching in Sunday School) over the past few months.

In Colossians, there is a parallel passage that has specific application for missions and evangelism:

“Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time.” Col 4:5 (NKJV)

It is in the context of his own ministry that Paul challenges us to make the most of our time not only in our life and family, but in God’s kingdom work. As stewards of our lives, it is incumbent upon every believer to be workers in God’s harvest field, to “pray, give, and go” with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, my daughter is ten today and seemingly has her whole life ahead of her. Yet as someone who was once ten myself, I know that life is short. I must be conscious of the time I have left with my children. I must teach her the value time to make the most of every opportunity -- to use every moment to glorify God. Most of all, I must demonstrate a life that is “on mission” with God. I must be involved in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ at home and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

God has only given us one life to live and we must be stewards of it.

How will I use it?

How will she use it?

How will you use it?

The Meaning of Missional -- How I Use the Term

On his new blog at LifeWay, Ed Stetzer has begun a much needed series on the “Meanings of Missional.” I look forward to his study on the history and usages of the word. In many ways, the current debate over the term “missional” is the new front on the old battle between “mission” and “missions.”[1] Of which of these words is “missional” the adjectival form? It appears that all depends on who is using the term.

For the sake of understanding this blog, however, here is how I presently use the term: The quality of being oriented toward or focused on God’s Kingdom mission. In my use, the term implies a strong priority on evangelism both to those around me and to the unreached peoples of the world. It involves intentionality in seeking ways to become increasingly involved as a “world Christian.” It constitutes a world and life view that focuses beyond oneself toward fully participating in God’s redemptive plan.

I will continue to think through this issue, as my explanation leaves much room for improvement. I will leave it to Dr. Stetzer to do the academic work here and to offer a precise, evangelical definition of the word (I am a little preoccupied with my dissertation:-). In the mean time, feel free to add your comments and suggestions to what I have offered here.

---

[1] For those not familiar with this distinction, here is the gist of it in its simplest form: Mission (singular) includes the entire program God has for His church. Missions (plural) refers to the specific task of taking the gospel to the world to bring persons to faith in Christ and establish churches. See, e.g., Olsen, What in the World is God Doing, p. 9-14.

Thinking Cooperatively About Missional Christianity

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 3: A Cooperative Conversation

A third purpose of this blog focuses on how Bible believing Christians generally, and Baptists particularly, might work together to fulfill the Great Commission.

Evangelicals for the last few generations have generally been drawn toward a responsible ecumenism. Christians have held a sentiment that all who believe the gospel are brothers and sisters in Christ and should do all they can to build this unity despite differences on peripheral doctrines.[1] While some have held to a kind of liberal ecumenism marked by religious relativism and a “broad tent” mentality, others have sought for a more evangelical type of unity that allows for fellowship among true believers and, when appropriate, working together in Great Commission work.

In recent years, Southern Baptists have renewed their sense of the importance for cooperation. Seven years ago, messengers (myself included) adopted the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message forming the capstone for the conservative resurgence. Since that time, there has been a renewed effort toward working cooperatively in Great Commission work. The executive committee, led by Morris Chapman, has called for increased cooperation among churches challenging messengers in its annual reports, introducing the theme “Empowering Kingdom Growth,” and a leading in a renewed commitment to the Cooperative Program. The International Mission Board has led in developing ways churches can partner in the global effort. At the same time, the board has renewed guidelines that both allow cooperation with other groups and set parameters for how it could be done appropriately. Many other things could be mentioned that demonstrate this trend toward cooperation, but suffice it to say that Southern Baptists continue to think both about how we might promote partnership in missions and evangelism and how we might do so appropriately.

The purpose of this blog begins at the next level. Once determining the appropriate boundaries for responsible partnership, how can we best cooperate as missional Christians and churches? What are the ways in which we can do so? Southern Baptists are perhaps most familiar with financial cooperation through the Cooperative Program. But beyond joint funding of mission efforts, Christians ought to think through ways we can partner together for kingdom purposes (through prayer, mutual encouragement, sharing of ideas, and appropriate joint efforts). It will be the purpose of this blog to explore ways in which Baptists and other evangelicals can work together toward His Kingdom purposes.

---

[1] For a great assessment about doctrinal differences and their relative importance, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s recent blog entry, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.”

Thinking Effectively About Missional Christianity

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 2: A Practical Conversation

If my last blog entry leaned toward the academic, this one “gets down to the nitty-gritty.” That is, once I discover what I must do biblically, there remains the question: How can I do it practically? The big problem is that evangelism is the one thing that every Baptist knows they ought to do but is also the thing that few do well. Some respond by clinging to methods that are outdated and ineffective, some go off the deep end and do whatever works in an uncritical pragmatism (see previous post), while a large number simply give up in their frustration.

This blog will seek, under the biblical guideline laid out in the last post, to have a practical conversation about being missional Christians and churches. Specifically, it will seek to discover and share how we can fulfill the Great Commission in real life – at this time, in this place, to this culture. I hope through this discussion to present genuine problems faced by those who wish to be missional, and work together to find workable solutions. Again, this is not a place where I will engage in ministry-bashing of others’ honest (though often misguided and inappropriate) attempts to reach people with the gospel. Nor will I join the gossipy “culture of criticism” (title of a future post?) in which I rail against other churches perceived inactivity (whether or not I know anything about their ministry situation). Rather it will be a place to address real problems and find actual solutions that are both practical/effective and biblical. It will be a place to lift up one another as we seek ways to best serve Christ. If no one ever reads this blog, this will at least allow me to lay out in writing the continuing questions for which I seek answers. If I am blessed to become part of an online community, then I hope this second purpose of this blog to be the most beneficial one – one that finds a mutual edification and encouragement in this great mission task.

Thinking Biblically about Missional Christianity

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 1: A Theological Conversation

As I seek to be a missional Christian in obedience to Christ, I want to be sure I am thinking and acting biblically. If the Bible is indeed God’s word, I must make every effort to conform my thought and practice to Scripture. Whether speaking of church planting models, ecclesiology, contextualization, evangelism, or theology, I must be faithful to the revelation of God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. If the error of the past generation was a lack of commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, the error of the present one is a lack of commitment to sound biblical exegesis. In the preface to his recent two volume work, Early Christian Mission, Erkhard Schnabel acknowledges this problem. He states,

Missiologists, missionaries and representatives of missionary societies seek to promote interest in crosscultural dialogue and witness and to encourage and develop the involvement of Christians, young and old, in active outreach to non-Christians. As laudable as these endeavors are, their proponents have not always sought to provide exegetical explanations or to engage in theological discussion when presenting models for missionary work and paradigms for effective evangelism.[1]

The Scripture is the basis of our Christian faith. When acting missionally, then, my practice must be biblically sound. Where the Bible commands I must be obedient. Where it gives examples I must learn from them. Where my methodology appeals to biblical precedent, it must do so on the basis of sound exegesis rather than a hermeneutic of convenience. In no case may the methods I use violate the Scriptures.

Current questions in for missional Christianity will need to be resolved with biblically appropriate answers. Application of biblical principles to missional practice must be done through a sound hermeneutic. We must discover the original meaning of the text, bridge between the biblical context and the present one, and make application in line with the intent of Scripture. I must not go to the Scripture to validate my preconceived ideas or preferences whatever they may be. I must allow my ministry and method to be shaped by Scripture itself. Köstenberger contends,

The descriptive nature of New Testament theology entails that we set aside for the time being our concern for the contemporary application of the biblical message. At the proper time, this will, of course, be very important, and, truth be told, this is also what fuels our interest in the present subject in the first place. But unless we are willing to let the New Testament speak to us on its own terms, we only deceive ourselves. We will merely find in the pages of the Bible what we have already determined to find there on other grounds. If we thus domesticate Scripture, we deprive ourselves of an opportunity to be instructed by, and even transformed by, Scripture, and we rob Scripture of its authority and preeminence.[2]

I must then take this approach to Scripture when dealing with the “hot button” issues of our day. Not only must I be “critical” in my contextualization,[3] but also in my church planting models, ecclesiology, soteriology, evangelism, worship, discipleship, and every other thing I do.

One of the purposes of this blog will be to seek biblical solutions to the problems faced by those who wish to be missional Christians. My purpose is not to criticize others or examine how everyone else is doing it wrong. Rather, I am striving in my own life and ministry to do things in ways that are consistent with the teaching of Scripture. I hope through conversations with others committed to the same ends to be able to think biblically about fulfilling our mission.

---

[1] Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004), xxiii.

[2] Andreas J. Köstenberger, "The Place of Mission in New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Determine the Significance of Mission Within the Scope of the New Testament's Message as a Whole," Missiology 27 (1999): 349.

[3] See Paul G. Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," Missiology 12 (1984): 287-96.