WhitemoonG makes good points in responding to Love Shack. It reminds me of my argument back in the 80's that it was more dangerous, spiritually, for Americans to watch Highway to Heaven than Hill Street Blues. Highway to Heaven subtly communicated that all one needed to do was be good or become better than you are and you'd be in with God. It denied, at its core, the doctrine of sin. That we all have fallen, and continue to fall, short of God's glory. Hill Street Blues, on the other hand, spoke clearly of mankind's fallenness and while it didn't offer any solutions to the problem, at least it held the mirror up to mankind and declared, "The emperor has no clothes." G.K. Chesterton wrote that sin is the only empirically verifiable point of Christian doctrine, yet Highway to Heaven said that while we may sin, we can just clean up our acts a bit, treat each other a bit better and that would get us to heaven. (This argument about Highway to Heaven and Hill Street Blues may also, in all honesty, have been a way to justify watching Hill Street Blues.)
We must always be discerning. LifeWay Books, a Baptist book distributor, has put a "Read with discernment" label on The Shack in their bookstores. Shouldn't they put that on the Joel Osteen, John MacArthur, John Piper and Brock and Bodie Thoene books, too? I agree with my friend that we have drifted, in our churches and in our own study, into "What does it mean to me?" instead of "What does it mean?" It is a mantra (can I say that?) of mine in any Bible Study I'm in. I don't really care what it means to you unless I first know you understand what it means.
Having said all this, I still think the book should be read because it forces us to ask again, "What does God say about himself?" I get tired of Americans who say, "My God would never..." Again, I'm not interested in what your God would or wouldn't do or say. I'm interested in what the God who is there and is not silent has said and done. I would be disappointed if people read The Shack and are too lazy to compare the inspired, inerrant self-description of God with that given in this novel. But then, this is the culture that paces in front of the microwave and takes their news in 60 second segments. So, unfortunately, WhitemoonG's concern for the non-discerning reader is right on the money. That is, far too many will read the book, take it as a 100% accurate portrayal of God and live out of that worldview rather than comparing the imagery with Scripture, adopting what resonates with revealed truth, and living out of that worldview.
3 comments:
I'm sad to hear that about Rob Bell's velvet Elvis, I have a video sermon of his that I really enjoyed and I had hoped to see more. It sounds a lot like the emergent church thing.
But there's so much about that movement that I really like and that I think would be very healthy for the church to embrace, there are also things (doctrines) that are very black and white and if they are changed or considered irrelevent then you no longer have Christianity.
As a musician, I see way to often people take the life and heart right out of a song by trying to make it doctrinally correct in every way. I understand the reason for doing that but, I'm not sure music's primary purpose is to communicate on that level of consciousness. I think that is why so much christian music is so bad. I remember hearing Bruce Cockburn and U2 for the first time, and somehow their music turned my heart Godward long before I knew they were singing about Him. I think the Arts are meant to work on that level and are made much less by trying to wrangle them into what really amounts to propaganda and sloganeering for God.
C.S. Lewis had a knack for not crushing his stories trying to make them fit all the right places. I can just imagine how his tales would go over in the church if he were writing today. Pan! for pete's sake!!
I'm sure careers would be made condemning Lewis as the anti-christ.
I think I loved The Shack for the same reasons I love Lewis' fiction; it made me think about God in ways I may not have otherwise, and I believe that I am much better for it.
Otherpaul
One of my great memories from the Central Coast is the two of us going to hear Bruce Cockburn at CalPoly. Great concert. Good friend. It doesn't get much better than that.
I hadn't thought about Lewis' use of Pan (and other mythical beasts and gods of Greece). He was going for the big picture. As you know, I often quote from movies and use movie scenes to illustrate a theological point. I usually make the caveat that while I can't endorse the entire film, this scene makes a point about life, or about God, or about Christians. I have it on good authority to do that. The apostle Paul quoted a poet of Crete to illustrate his point without condoning the poet's world view or his life style. He pointed to an idol in Athens to draw the unbelieving Athenians to Jesus. We must always be intentional and, to some degree cautious, but sometimes in our caution we miss glimpses of God.
HI again Paul and Paul (from the oddball name in the group).
Enjoyed your comments, and for what my little opinion may or may not be worth, don't know that I disagree with any of it.
Your point about another Paul guy quoting the Crete poet to help illustrate a point is well taken.
There are lots of things that can be used in our discourse to help illustrate and enlighten, or stimulate thinking, arising from everyday secular sources, and I certainly don't see anything wrong in it, as long as the ultimate metric of revealed biblical truth isn't diminished or vitiated, or some potentially dangerous perspective isn't emphasized.
I remember teaching Junior High Sunday School once, quoting "Rock Me" by Steppenwolf: "I don't know where we come from, don't know where we're going to..." as exemplifying the 60's and 70's loose satisfaction NOW mentality,
in contrast to the joy and confidence of PURPOSE ( sorry Rick , believe it or not, some of us viewed our Christian lives as having a transcendent purpose years ago!) and eternal life in Christ.
Could jumble up the issue with many more comments, but I guess there are dangers both in having (and patting oneself on the back for) an extreme open mind that actually believing ANYTHING/SOMETHING is viewed as rigid and offensive, vs. such a closed mind that rejects anything new or different simply on the basis of STYLE.
The comments re C.S. Lewis are quite interesting. But, I would also point out that unless I missed something (entirely possible) they are what they are: his unique soul searching analytical thinking and apologetics mindset, plus some interesting ideas, stories, allegories, etc. loaded with insights and thought provocation: (screwtape letters!)
But, I didn't catch some drift of Lewis announcing that virtually any doctrine of Christianity, or any scriptural teaching must be re-written, re-defined, diluted, selectively emphasized or ignored until virtually ANY of it can be seen as meaning ANYTHING or NOTHING depending on what suits the hour, or day, or discussion, so as to "relate" or not "offend" anybody. Bell and McLaren are among the worst offenders. Since Brian McLaren is very intent on being "missional" sappy, "do-gooding" "Christ followers," would it be a safe assumption that McLaren would desire to model his preaching and sermons on Jesus, as he is a "Christ follower?" I'll bet so!
So, when Jesus preached his FIRST sermon, did he "relate?" Was he "seeker-sensitive?"
Considering that the audience of his first sermon was so outraged that they wanted to throw him over a cliff, I'll bet not!
Thanks for a good forum and discusion, Paul and Paul!
WhitemoonG
Post a Comment