Watts on Time

In my recent studies it has been interesting to observe that modern science adds light to the doctrine of the eternality of God. According to physicists time can only exist with objects. It is not a steady or self-sufficient quality. That means time had a beginning since objects had a beginning—the big bang, as some report. Further, time is relative to objects. In a black hole, where objects and light are absorbed into the smallest mass, ten minutes can be the equivalent of several centuries on the earth. This, of course, gives new and practical insight to 2 Peter 3:8 which says, 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Isaac Watts in his hymn “O God, Our Help In Ages Past” lays out the practical truths of this doctrine:

1. O God, our help in ages past,
our hope for years to come,
our shelter from the stormy blast,
and our eternal home.

2. Under the shadow of thy throne,
still may we dwell secure;
sufficient is thine arm alone,
and our defense is sure.

3. Before the hills in order stood,
or earth received her frame,
from everlasting, thou art God,
to endless years the same.

4. A thousand ages, in thy sight,
are like an evening gone;
short as the watch that ends the night,
before the rising sun.

5. Time, like an ever rolling stream,
bears all who breathe away;
they fly forgotten, as a dream
dies at the opening day.

6. O God, our help in ages past,
our hope for years to come;
be thou our guide while life shall last,
and our eternal home.

As the fifth stanza of this hymn reads, time needs to be relatavized in view of eternity. Time is almost as a dream that dies at the opening day. Our life is short, as a "vapor waiting to pass." We needs to number our days, as such. This is done by faith and wisdom. This helps us to understand that "this too will pass" when life seems unbearable. We need to live from an eternal perspective. But for us today it is done a little more by fact since science has given us tremendous insight into the relativity of time and makes eternity take on more depth to our finite minds.

Stephen Hawking and the "mind of God"

Tonight I watched a TV show on the great physicist, Stephen Hawking. I watched with fascination as his theories surrounding black holes and infinity were debated and discussed. It was quite interesting…in fact is was so interesting my wife and daughter, who carry little to nothing about theoretical physics became enamored with the television program. The fact that this man with a giant mind exists in such a crippled body makes his story quite compelling for anyone, though.

Hawking’s life pursuit has been to understand “the mind of God.” Hawking does not approach this as a believer or from any theological angle. God for Hawking is a synonym for ultimate reality. He simply wants to know the answers that explain why we are and how life began. He believes physics can solve or provide meaningful answers to this or these questions.

From all of this he has wanted to find the theory that unifies everything—he wants the theory that will unify the big picture of Einstein’s relativity with the small picture of subatomic particles (I think those were the two poles he wanted to match?)

What is amazing to me about Hawking was the singularity with which he seeks to understand the universe. For example, in 2003 when Hawking was taken to the hospital and nearly died with complications from his own disease his mind continued to work on the problems related to physics and the universe. During this time he had a "vision" (not of the spiritual sort but bordering on a scientific or secualr mysticism) which further expanded his understanding of black holes and his theories relating to them. Against odds he escaped death and went back to work on covering further ground with his life pursuit of understanding “the mind of God.” Due to his disease his work is very tedious and extremely slow. Yet he unceasingly plows on driven by this pursuit.

As we all watched this I was inspired. Three ways…

1) I want to know “the mind of God.” Fortunately for the Christian the “mind of God” is revealed in the witness of the Bible through Jesus Christ. This we call revelation. Yet, it is not ink on paper, but it is God Himself that we encounter in His Word through study, prayer, experience, and the providential working of the Holy Spirit. This work requires the greatest level of seeking and humility. The singularity of Hawking should inspire spiritual leaders who seek to know and communicate the reality of God to others.

2) I think Hawking in seeking to bring together the bigger and smaller realities are worthy model for the spiritual leader to pursue. He seeks a grand and unifying vision or theory of all things. This should be the task of the spiritual leader…to take the things of heaven and eternity and connect them to all of the realities of this earth. We need to unify as much as we reasonably can the realms of eternity and the realms of creation.

3) Further, I was inspired by the rigor of testing and debate which takes place in physics. Though theology and the life of faith are very different subjects or realms of knowledge than physics, I think that these should be tested in the very rigor of life and reality to see if our understanding of God and the Christian life be proven true or false. But this requires an increasing spiritual maturity.

Isaac was overshadowed by his father and his sons. Yet his life is of central significance to the covenant. Over a hundred times the Bible refers to the covenant of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6, Deuteronomy 1:8) And it is in chapter 26 that we have the only chapter in the Bible exclusively devoted to Isaac. Outside this chapter there is not much about him. Isaac definitely takes a minor role in the historical narrative of Genesis. But in chapter 26 of Genesis we have a collection of snapshots from his life that lend significant insight into this man’s character and walk of faith. What we see is that his faith triumphed over his own faults and the faults of those who opposed him so that he would find God's greatest blessings for himself and those around him. We see a foretaste of how God is reconciling the world to himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19) Further, he gives us key lessons in establishing credibility with those who distrust us. As Solomon writes...”When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7)

Our narrative begins…

Now there was a famine in the land—besides the earlier famine of Abraham’s time—and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar. 2 The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. 3 Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.” 6 So Isaac stayed in Gerar. (Genesis 26:1-6)

What is of first importance to see is that the first six verses is that Isaac's story takes place in the larger affirmation of God's covenant purposes first established with Abraham. (Genesis 12, 15, 17) God is the hero and the main actor of this story. This is perhaps the first time Isaac has heard the first hand call of God directly spoken in this matter. And as he hears this call it comes with a severe test. For the land that he was called experiences a famine. Though the details are somewhat different it is a test that is similar to what his father experienced in Genesis 12. It seems the observation which needs to be made is that God places Isaac in this test to show to Isaac that the covenant promise will be fulfilled by his God’s own faithfulness and not that of Isaac’s. Though the covenant comes through Isaac, it only comes from God.

As the famine strikes Isaac goes to Garar. Gerar means “sojourning” or “place of lodging.” It appears to be a rich pastoral land that is located on the southern edge of the promise land. When God wants to extend our faith and stretch our character He puts us at a place that that provides optimum safety and optimum challenges. It is like Gerar, a place of sojourn and a place of safe pasture. Isaac will experience both of these. He will grow abundantly and be challenged abundantly. Let’s look at the challenge first. There he experiences the same kind of fear that his father Abraham experienced. When he travelled there the men of that place asked him about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” because he was afraid to say, “She is my wife.” He thought, “The men of this place might kill me on account of Rebecca, because she is beautiful.” Genesis 26:7

What? Again? Strange as it may seem, the same old sin of deception raises its ugly head. If nothing else proves it, this does—Isaac is a son of his father. Frightened concerning his own safety, Isaac succumbs to the temptation to pass off his wife as his sister just as his dad did to Sarah. In doing this he was willing to risk Rebecca’s purity as the price for his personal protection. We are given a window into the imperfect faith and incomplete faith of Isaac. Though he follows the leading of God to go to Gerar, he still lacks complete confidence in God. He doesn’t take with the seriousness that he needs to the covenant promise of God in vv.2-5 where God says his descendants will become numerous. This promise can only happen through the wife God chose for him, Rebecca. But Gerar is, again, that place of providing the optimum conditions of growth and testing.

Isaac’s deception is then uncovered by Abimilech. The story continues, 8 When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. 9 So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac goes on to explain his sin. Isaac answered him, “Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her.” 11Then Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the men might well have slept with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.” So Isaac is in a foreign area and he has lost trust with the ruling leader of the area. This would appear to spell trouble for Isaac who is in a place of dependence upon the ruling authorities in this area. But God’s favor remains on Isaac. Look at the favor Abimilech places on Isaac. 11 So Abimelech gave orders to all the people: “Anyone who molests this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.”

Apparently though Abimilech had lost some trust with Isaac he believed that God was with him. This is why he ordered his protection. With God’s protection upon Isaac we see what happens next…12 Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. 13 The man became rich, and his wealth continued to grow until he became very wealthy. 14 He had so many flocks and herds and servants that the Philistines envied him. 15 So all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the time of his father Abraham, the Philistines stopped up, filling them with earth. 16 Then Abimelech said to Isaac, “Move away from us; you have become too powerful for us.”

What occurs next is where Isaac’s story really gets interesting and his character begins to be revealed. Forced to move he settles in the valley of Gerar. (v.17) It is important to notice that he is so hated by his neighbors that he has to move his abundance of servants and cattle to a place where there is no water. What a hardship this must have been. He reopens the wells that had been previously dug by Abraham and later filled in. (v.18) He gave the wells the same name as his father had given them. This shows Isaac is reclaiming the land that was given to his father. He is the rightful possessor of it. But look at what happens. 19 Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well of fresh water there. 20 But the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen and said, “The water is ours!” So he named the well Esek, because they disputed with him. This is interesting to notice that though Isaac is the rightful possessor of this land by the decree of God he is being bullied around, first by Abimilech and now by these local herdsman. Now see what happens again. 21 Then they dug another well, but they quarreled over that one also; so he named it Sitnah.

It happens again. Wow! Why does this happen. God has promised him this land so why is he being bullied around? I believe it was for the testing and growth of Isaac’s faith. Under this incredible hardship he was tested and needed to learn to focus on the promise God had given him. Gerar was the place for growth and testing. But after we have passed the test then we get the reward. Look at what happen next. 22 He moved on from there and dug another well, and no one quarreled over it. He named it Rehoboth, saying, “Now the LORD has given us room and we will flourish in the land.” Isaac is now brought to a place of rest. But what happens next is even more wonderful. 23 From there he went up to Beersheba. 24 That night the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.” 25 Isaac built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD. There he pitched his tent, and there his servants dug a well.

Why Isaac went back to Beersheba, his home town, at this point I do not know. But he is now allowed to go back to his hometown after being a season in Gerar. And upon arriving at the very finish line of this trial he is given the greatest reward of all. The Lord appeared to him and spoke.

John Calvin says of this experience…In the tranquil enjoyment of the
well, he acknowledges the favor which God had showed him: but forasmuch as one word of God weighs more with the faithful than the accumulated mass of all good things, we cannot doubt that Isaac received this oracle more joyfully than if a thousand rivers of nectar had flowed unto him: and truly Moses designedly commemorates in lofty terms this act of favor, that the Lord encouraged him by his own word, (Genesis 26:24;) whence we may learn, in ascribing proper honor to each of the other gifts of God, still always to give the palm to that proof of his paternal love which he grants us in his word. Food, clothing, health, peace, and other advantages, afford us a taste of the Divine goodness; but when he addresses us familiarly, and expressly declares himself to be our Father, then indeed it is
that he thoroughly refreshes us to satiety.

And if that were not enough look at what occurs next…

26 Meanwhile, Abimelech had come to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his personal adviser and Phicol the commander of his forces. 27 Isaac asked them, “Why have you come to me, since you were hostile to me and sent me away?” 28 They answered, “We saw clearly that the LORD was with you; so we said, ‘There ought to be a sworn agreement between us’—between us and you. Let us make a treaty with you 29 that you will do us no harm, just as we did not molest you but always treated you well and sent you away in peace. And now you are blessed by the LORD.” 30 Isaac then made a feast for them, and they ate and drank. 31 Early the next morning the men swore an oath to each other. Then Isaac sent them on their way, and they left him in peace.

Lessons:
1) God’s unconditional promises cannot be hindered despite our foolishness and lack of faith. This is why Christ came in the fullness of time and Israel is reestablished as a nation today. This is the story of the Bible. It is the story of God’s wisdom and faithfulness.
2) God took Isaac on this “sojourn” (Gerar) so Abraham would have a first hand faith and not simply rely on the great exploits of faith that his father demonstrated. God will take us on similar sojourns that will be the optimum places of testing and growth.
3) Isaac shows the pathway to reconciliation. It is patience in the face of adversity and allowing our faith to overcome our fear even in the midst of mistreatment. Abimilech comes to Isaac to make a covenant. Through Isaac’s patience in the face of suffering he could see that the motives of Isaac were pure and that he was strengthened by his faith in God. Isaac was a witness to the power and love of God. This is the way we are to behave toward our enemies and those who oppose us until God wins them over.

Warren Buffet and Economic Wisdom

Last night I watched a fascinating interview with Warren Buffet given by Charlie Rose. Buffet is, of course, one of America's greatest financial investors. Because of that I was interested to see what he would say in light of America's current economic condition. I believe the interview was conducted in November. I will sketch a few highlights that informed my thinking:

1) Buffet had an unshakable belief that the American economy will return and grow. He stated that the same ingredients that have made America great over the last 200 years are still present and that America has gone through these economic cycles before. He highlighted that during 1979 to 1982 recession there was unemployment of 10% and experts were saying that our economy would go to Japan and other places, and all the while a young Bill Gates and his friends were eating pizza and drinking coke in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Who would have been able to predict the boom that would be Microsoft. He also stated that we've been through these cycles for the last 200 years, but the ingredients for growth (our laws, innovation, creativity, openness to harnessing the human potential) still remain.

2) When asked about the growing advance of China and India outpacing America, Buffet said that he was greatful that the pie of economc wealth is increasing and that he thinks it is a good thing that China and India may be coming up with solutions to our own problems. This is not bad. The solutions that they may come up with will be shared in the areas of energy and technology advancement.

3) When asked about the Chineese having a greater GDP by the mid century than America, Buffet said it is possibly going to happen because they have 4 times of population of America. They are bound to grow faster at a percentage level because they are starting at such a lower economic position. This is not a problem. We will benefit from their growth. Furhter it is good that the world economically prospers because you do not want a world where America is perceived to have all the the "goodies." This creates more envy and a greater climate for war. He also acknowledged that the world is going to gain from being able to observe our nation's 200 years of economic development. Chaina and India can go futher than they would by seeing and learning from our mistakes and successes.

3) I was impressed with Buffet's humility. He admitted that his success comes from the way he is wired and the unique opportunities that this society affords. None of us are self-made men. He stated that if he was in a thrid world country where success has to be built on having a strong back, he would be very poor. He couldn't go around in that society and claim his gifts of "capital allocation, capital allocation," because there would be no capital to allocate. He gave the example of the middle weight boxing contenders are not successful by their own effort. They succeed with the people who build the large arenas so 13,000 people can pay to watch the fight and their audeience expands to several million more for those who want to watch the fight on satellite or cable pay-per-view."

Some conlcusions:
1) Be pateient with the economy.
2) Culture is the foundation of economic acheivement.
3) Be humble, know your place and call in life. It is God who ultimately gives success.
4) It is interesting that in the nations where there is the strongest economic growth there are strong and growing representations of evangelical Christian faith, namely China, Inida, and Brazil. Could their economic growth be linked to providing an environment for the gospel to flourish and for missionaries to be sent out from these places?

Dear God, I look at how you have led me in the past, but I struggle to learn the lessons you have for me in the present. What do you want to teach me? What insight do you have for me? What do I need to learn? Are there realities much greater that you want to open up for me than I can understand?

Why am I not more consumed with your eternal realities and seeing the brevity and the fleeting nature of this life, while at the same time seeing it infused with heaven and having the greatest value. These are things that are very difficult for me to see in the way that I should.

God's Jealousy

The training of God is tough. But it is tough because He has an all consuming purpose that he wants us to follow. He has a focus that he wants to create. We need to follow deeply in it. But it is not easy. This reflects the jealousy of God. He only wants that which is for His glory and so he will prune us of all lesser glories. This is God's way toward His servants.

I spelled out your character in detail
To the men and women you gave me.
They were yours in the first place;
Then you gave them to me...(John 17:6)

This expresses what should be the ultimate heart of shepherding when the spiritual leader gets frustrated with the direction of his church. The leader needs to remember that they are simply given to him by God. Any frustration that the leader feels should be that which he senses from the heart of God, and not his personal irritation or impatience.

Patient Endurance

There is nothing more important to learn when going through a prolonged trial than living in the strength of faith and the rest of assurance on a moment by moment basis. This is what the Bible calls "patient endurance."

It is vital to see heaven's kind hand and God's gracious smile through each frame of your life. He is in every frame and that truth should guide us with much needed perspective.

We should also be aware that he knows each frame which is a head of the one you are in. In fact He is shaping the picture that will be on that frame. This should be a source of great comfort and encouragement.

YouTube - Facing the giants movie ep.5

YouTube - Facing the giants movie ep.5

Today on Thanksgiving I was watching television. I turned to TBN. They were playing the movie, "Facing the Giants." As I turned on the show it was at the part where Coach Taylor was the most discouraged with his football team. Then this prayer warrior guy (Mr. Bridges) comes into his office and reads this scripture.

I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. Revelation 3:8

He then tells him that God is not through with him and he is to blossom or grow where he has been planted.

This is a very interesting verse that was quoted.

When I was called to my current location of ministry I was called to "walk through doors." I was never called to the church ministry, I was called to walk through doors.

Oh God, Bless My Mess

Question: Does God lead us into situations that end up being a mess? Or that end up leaving us hurt and disadvantaged for a time? Would God do that to His children? I think so. Why? Perhaps there are no simple or even clear answers. Maybe we need to go on a biblical quest to see what insights we can find.

Abram left Ur in faith. He left everything he had known. Genesis 12:1 reads, The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. This "leave" and "go" would be a slow 900 mile journey with great potential danger and much hardship. Abram arrives. He has done what God asked. God confirms his obedience upon his arrival to the Promise Land. "The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspringa I will give this land.” (Genesis 12:7) Great! There is no better feeling than setting out on a risk taking quest to obey God and then having His confirmation on what you have done.

Abram, now, begins to settle and verse 10 tells us, "Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe." (Genesis 12:10) Abram has experienced several tests: He was called to leave his hometown (11:31-32); his wife was barren (11:30); and the land that God promised to him is occupied (12:6). Now there is a severe famine! If you were Abram, what might you say? “I came all the way out here for this! I thought Canaan was to be a land of blessings! God, I deserve better than this. I’ve tried to serve you and live for you and this is the thanks I get for my efforts? Thanks a lot!” Of course, we do not know what Abram said. But you'd have to imagine those kind of thoughts ran through his head or were spoken from his lips.

The result is that Abram runs down to live in Egypt, because that is where the food is. Did he do the right thing in leaving the land God called him? Some would say yes. Some would say Abram simply followed the necessary direction which his circumstances required. After all, Jacob's sons went to Egypt when there was a famine in Canaan and this was in the will of God. So did many others in that part of the world. This is simply what people did.


Others would say he did not. Why? There is no report that Abram consulted God. Nor is there a report that God spoke to him to go down to Egypt. Further, there are passages which tell the Israelites that they were not to depend on the strength of the Egyptians. (Isaiah 31:1) Add to this the the consequences of Abraham's actions. He lied to Pharaoh to save his own skin. (vv.12-13) He picks up Hagar the Egyptian, through whom he has Ishmael, which ultimately will lead to the conflicts between the Jews and the Arabs.


It seems good points can be made on both sides of the debate. But if Abram was disobedient, what is very odd is that God protects and blesses Abram. Look at how Genesis records the events that follow...

He [Pharaoh] treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels. But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had. So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold. (Genesis 12:16-13:2)

What is very odd is that if Abram was disobedient in going to Egypt then his disobedience brought prosperity, but his obedience in going to Canaan brought famine.

I don't know what all to think about this story. I may not have the most accurately interpretative read. But here are some lessons I derive...

1) God may allow us or even bring us into choices which will be very challenging or disadvantageous. This sould be in the very center of His will.

2) We may not handle these situations or testings in the most faithful way even though we may be people of great faith, as Abram was.

3) When we do not handle these situations in the most faithful way, God shows himself to be faithful. As Paul simply states,"...if we are faithless, he will remain faithful..." (2 Timothy 2:13)

4) When God shows Himself to be faithful when we are not, we grow in faith and in love and in obedience to God. These situations where we feel forced to go down to Egypt, in fact, are often desgned to increase our faith.

This story is recorded about this man of faith to show that faith grows through what we do not understand. Like Job we see God in a brighter and bigger light when we go through the tunnel of our doubt, confusion, and failure.

It's Patience Stupid!

James Carville used to say, "It's the economy stupid." No. It's patience. A lesson we need to learn through our nation's economic crisis is patience. "Love is patient." (1 Corinthians 13:4) A fruit of the Spirit is "patience." (Galatians 5:22) Some of the worst financial decisions we make are due to a lack patience. We either allow ourselves to be pressured to make purchasing decisions we shouldn't by sale's people who lack patience. We lack the patience to wait to buy an item until we can afford it. We make bad investments because we are lured by the hope of quick wealth. We lack the patience to trust God's timing for His progress to be made in our lives. We lack patience. Proverbs 13:11 states, "Wealth hastily gotten will dwindle, but those who gather little by little will increase it." (NRSV) Because of this we have developed a credit economy which has been unsustainable. Like Abraham we take Sarah's handmaid and try to fulfill God's promise in our own strength and wisdom. "Let's just get on with it and make God's plan happen," we say to ourselves. The results make life more difficult to live with.

I know that in my life I need to increase in patience. Patience is a product of love. Lord, please increase my patience.

Me and My Big Mouth

James tells us, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue..." (James 1:19)

I have learned this past week that I should more carefully guard my words so that I speak only what God wants to communicate through me. I have a lot of ideas about a lot of things. But in the end these ideas are useless unless they are matured and led by God.

Too many times I have the problem where I will speak by the leading of God and then as I get on a roll I keep speaking things over and above what God has called me to share. These things I share may be true but become info overload for the hearer or are ideas which are irrelevant for the place where the person is at in his/her spiritual growth.

This ties in with my previous blog on Carrie Prejan. Too often I get caught up in the drama of events, and I add to the drama by saying things which are not most helpful or clearly understood. My words need to align with my faith so that they will focus on the purposes of God, not the confusion or drama of the situation.


Another one of my temptations is to overlead. I can tend to want to over direct events in the church or in other areas where I have a vested interest. I do this by over arguing or over defending my case. My tendency to overlead demonstrates an area where I am not cooperating with the Holy Spirit as I should be. I simply need to trust the work of Holy Spirit to ultimately guide people and events as He is most capable of doing and has been doing before the beginning of time.

I need to let my words be fewer knowing that God can multiply them for his eternal purposes.

When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise. (Proverbs 10:19)

Carrie Prejean, Miss California in the Miss USA pageant 2009, took a very courageous stand when asked by homosexual gossip blogger Perez Hilton about her stand on gay marriage. The question specifically posed to her was whether other states should follow Vermont in passing laws approving gay marriage. Her response was that she was for traditional or "opposite" marriage.

This was the not the politically correct thing to say. It may have cost her the Miss USA crown. What it certainly did was cause her to be the recipient of a firestorm of controversy that has been unrelenting and brutal. Out of this Carrie Prejan has emerged as an icon of the cultural and religious right, and a pariah of the cultural left. Now she has a book about her journey titled, "Still Standing."

Christianity Today interviewed her about his upcoming book. In the book she often speaks of the important influence of her pastor, Miles McPherson. In the interview with Christianity Today, she gives this reflection concerning some of the most important guidance she received.

Christianity Today: What's the best advice he gave you about handling the stress?
Prejean: He basically told me every day, "Carrie, don't pay attention to the drama. Don't get into the drama. God has a plan for you, he chose you for this. This is your time to figure out what God has in store for you, and you will figure it out."

Wow! "Don't get into the drama...This is your time to figure out what God has in store."

This advise has personal relevance for me. Quite often I can get caught up in the drama of life, ministry, and events. The challenge for me is to figure out what God has in store. This is truly liberating and exciting. It frees you from captivity to the chaos of events and elevates your focus to take higher ground and attain greater purposes for which God has in store.

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. (1 Cor 10:13)

This words "way out," according to David Jeremiah, convey the idea of a narrow passage of escape out of a treacherous canyon. The circumstances and situations that life throw at us can be treacherous and extremely confusing. But in finding God's purposes we can discover the way of escape. This requires taking on a narrow and forthright focus. But the journey is incredible because God is working in it!

I think someone once said about the doctrine of the Trinity that..."If you try to understand it you will lose your mind, if you try to deny it you will lose your soul." Though I have not really met any Christian that denies the Trinity I think secretly many harbor that it is a confusing idea that is largely irrelevant to authenitic faith. The Trinity for some, though admittedly orthodox, is little more than a confusing math quandry: 1 (deity) + 1 (deity) + 1 (deity)=1 (God) Huh??? Christian have historically been accused by some as people who cannot count. (In fact the popular pastor and author T.D. Jakes denies the Trinity. For many evangelicals this is not a major strike against him.)


In contrast, I believe that one of the greatest contributions of The Shack is that is helps us to conceptulize the Trinity in some very profound, relational, and...YES...biblical ways. Further, it articulates the utterly profound importance of the doctrine. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is the distinctive view we as Christians (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) hold of God distinct from the great monotheistic faiths of Islam and Judaism, and specially distinct from the non-monotheistic faiths of Hindusim, Buddhism, etc. Yet, there are important areas where The Shack gets the Trinity wrong.


In this writing I want to examine how The Shack can serve to bring a fresh revival of this vital doctrine.


What is the Trinity? Mack gives us somewhat of a definition...

...there are three of you and you are all one God.
(p.101)

This is an acceptable definition, but it is stated with more clarity from the lips of Papa (Himself??? Herself???).

Mackenzie...We are not three gods and we are not
talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father,
and worker. I am one God and three persons, and each of the three is fully and
entirely the one. (p.101)

This is a very good defintion. First it denies "modalism." Modalism is the idea that God is simply one God who shows Himself in three ways or expressions. This is a common misconception held by too many evangelicals (specially T.D. Jakes) and The Shack serves as a corrective.


But, of course, the "one God and three persons" idea is still very confusing for most. I will be the first to admit that with our own minds we know as much about God as a fly knows about mucleur physics. But for me, if I may be so bold, the Trinity isn't confusing. I don't believe it is meant to be so hard to understand. It is the way I have come through the years to more and more think of God. I believe that if you think of God in a trinitarian way, just as you familiarize yourself with a foreign language, guess what??? the Trinity will not as foreign or strange of a concept.


What about the math of the Trinity? It is confusing for some because 1 deity + 1 deity + 1 deity=3 deities. But we emphatically say the Trinity is one God not three. What we don't realize is that when we do that kind of math we are using the wrong connection symbol. The math of the Trinity is 1 x 1 x 1=1. Let go to the beginning...

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)

Notice that when God created He did so as one God, not as two, three, or any multiple of numbers. Yet He also uses the personal pronouns that are in a plural form..."us" and "our." God does not say, "Let me make man in my image." What is important to realize about this passage is that in the preceeding verses (1:1-25) they refer to what God does, His works in creation. Verse 26 stands in distinction in that it refers to who God is. When referring to who God is it refers to Him as a "unity (One God) within plurality (multiple persons)." At this point people have a cerebral knee jerk reaction and respond, "This makes no sense!" What a minute? In our national Pledge of Allegiance we refer to ourselves as "One nation under God, indivisible..." This concept contains the idea of a unity (one nation) which exisits in plurality (50 states).


But what does this plurality within unity have to do with God? Where does the three and the one come in? How can God be three and how can God be one? Isn't this a mathematical contradiction? The answer to this is simple...the way in which God is three is not identical in the same respect with the way God is one.

So, in what respect is God one? Let's look at Ephesians 4:2-7.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of
all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace
has been given as Christ apportioned it. Eph 4:2-7

Notice all the plurality of persons. All persons of the Trinity are mentioned and are separately referred to as "one Spirit," "one Lord," and "one Father." But they are also given the designation of "one." This is a practically and theologically important truth. How are they one? They are one in two very important ways: 1) The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in divine nature. They are equally divine and equally eternal, equally God. 2) They are completely one in unity: purpose, thought, feeling without any friction or difficulty. So what does this mean? What does this look like? The reason the Trinity is so hard for us to understand is not an issue of logic, it is an issue of experience where we are so marred by sin and selfishness. But we do have glimpses of the trinitarian experience. Pastor Kevin Miller writes: Maybe a family when it was at its most healthy and loving. A sports team when people stopped worrying about their own egos. A support group where you felt cared for in spite of your brokenness. A music group when you finally got lost in the music. Because to experience the Trinity is to experience a community of love.

It is here that The Shack lends us much conceptual help. Look at Mack's description of the Trinity as he sees Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu (Indian term meanining "air" or "wind"). On one occasion as the divine trio is preparing for a meal and are engaging in light hearted humor, Mack observes...

They passed the food to one another and Mack was spellbound watching and listening as Papa joined in the conversation Jesus and Sarayu were having. It had something to do with reconciling as estranged family, but it wasn’t what they were talking about that captured Mack, it was how they related. He never had seen three people share with such simplicity and beauty. Each seemed more aware of the other than of themselves. (p.120-121)

Again, during the preparation for the meal, Jesus drops what Mack perceived to be some type of batter or sauce. This occassion becomes the opportunity for teasing and horse play amongst the Trinity and Mack responds...

So this was God in relationship? It was beautiful and so appealing. He knew that it didn’t matter whose fault it was-the mess from some bowl had been broken, that a dish that had been planned would not be shared. Obviously, what was truly important here was the love they had for one another and the fullness it brought them. He shook his head. How different this was from the way he treated the ones he loved! (p.105)

Personally I see this as a very beautiful and compelling reflection of who God is...He is a community of mutual and self-giving love, a divine family.

And though God is one, He is also three. In what way or respect is He a plurality??? Let's suggest two ways: 1) They differ in roles, and 2) as distinct persons of love who first and foremost love each other. The Shack certainly brings out the love that the Trinity has for one another. But it seriously misrepresents the distinctions that are in God's triune relationship. The Shack adopts too much of a bland sameness in the divine persons, rather than the brilliant distinctions of orderly submission. In fact The Shack says there is no ordered distinction in the Trinity. For example...

“Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.” (p.122)

"That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him or Sarayu to me or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the
same way.” (p.145)

These statements are simply incorrect. For instance, we never read that the Father submits to the Son or takes any direction or guidance from Him. The Son always submits to the Father because the final position of authority rests with the Father.

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the
Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have
life in himself. (John 5:26)

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be
holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be
adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure
and will. Eph 1:3-5

...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things
came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Cor 8:6

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

In all of these passages God the Father is the one who is in leadership (headship) authority over the Son. Look at the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son...

If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the
Spirit of truth. (Jn 14:15-17)

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. (Jn 15:26)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he
will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from
what is mine and making it known to you. ( Jn 16:13-14)

It is clear from the Bible that there is a relational distinction and ordered unity in the Trinity. The Shack blurs this and does so for, I believe, politically correct and liberal ideologies. This is an infortunate aspect of the book. Despite this here are some great areas where The Shack suceeds in its portrayal of the Trinity.

1) It makes a great case for the fact that God as Trinity is a being of boundless and stable love. In fact God could not be love unless He is triune. Look at how The Shack profoundly explains this...

“Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself. (p.101)

"You do understand,” she continued, “that unless I had an object to love-or, more accurately, a someone to love-if I did not have such a relationship within myself, then I would not be capable of love at all? You would have a god who could not love. Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature. That kind of god could possibly act without love, and that would be a disaster. And that, is surely not me.” (p.102)

"If there's only one God but not three Persons within the one God, then we would expect that the ultimate reality behind the universe could be silence. It could be power. It could be peace. It could be domination. It could be any of those things. But there's one thing that it could not be. The ultimate reality could not be love. Because for love to exist, there has to be a sharing, and there has to be a communication, and there has to be a self-giving. But if there's only one, there's nothing to give the self to." (???)

The way God is pictured in The Shack is in many senses biblically accurate. He is a being of boundless and overwhelming love that runs over to His creation. He is love from eternity because He is an eternal relationship of love. All that He has done is born out of the creative power of His love.

2) In that God is a God of boundless love He desires to expand His circle of love by inviting people to join in it. He desires for more people to come into a relationship with Himself because it increases His joy.

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in
order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in
them.” (John 17:26)

3) The Shack I think rightly shows that the Trinity is the model and ultimate goal for the new community of love, the church. What else are we to look like? What else are we to aspire? What else is life all about? It is God...God specifically seen and revealed as a triune being of love. Toward this end I think The Shack does the Christian community a great service.

Does God Look More Like Aunt Jemima or Gandalf? (The Shack)

I have been accustomed to think of Aunt Jemima as simply a lady on the bottle of my pancake syrup, but that has changed. The Shack portrays God the Almighty and Eternal as an apron clad, dress wearing, hip shaking, ipod listening, bread kneading, hefty black woman. Since reading The Shack I find it hard to think of pancake syrup the same way again, or at least the figure on the label. Is this portrayal of God or "Papa" a legitimate picture of how He could reveal Himself? Does this image of "Papa" help break down some of our Eurocentric "stupid white male" (phrase from Michael Moore) preconditioning about God? Or is that uneasy hesitancy that some of us feel with the idea of an Aunt Jemima deity a welcome caution?

Let's start the exploration with Mack. He is invited by "Papa" through a note in the mail to come back to the nightmarish scene of his daughter's murder. As he approaches "the shack" it turns into a transformed and glorified log cabin surrounded by a Thomas Kincade type setting. Coming near the door of this miraculously transformed cabin he encounters the completely unexpected...

"Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he
raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly
into the face of a large beaming African-American woman. Instinctively he
jumped back, but he was to slow. With speed that belied her size, she
crossed the distance between them and engulfed him in her arms, lifting him
clear off his feet and spinning him around like a little child. And all the
while she was shouting his name-“Mackenzie Allen Phillips”-with the ardor of
someone seeing a long-lost and deeply-loved relative. She finally put him
back on earth and, with her hands on his shoulders, pushed him back as if to
get a good look at him." (p.82)

In view of the deep pain Mack carries. this is a very welcome and healing scene. The figure he encounters, "Papa," is extremely likable, winsome, and overflowing with love. Mack is intrigued and delighted with the presence of this surprising figure but he still has reservations due to his religious and theological conditioning. Young explains...

"Mack was speechless. In a few seconds this woman had breached
pretty much every social propriety behind which he had so safely entrenched
himself. But something in the way that she looked at him and yelled his name
made him equally delighted to see her too, even though he didn’t have a clue
who she was." (p.83)

Again...

"She picked up the wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort
of batter. 'Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both
genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or
a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and
suggest that you call me Papa is simple to mix metaphors, to help you keep
from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” She leaned
forward as if to share a secret. “To reveal myself to you as a very large,
white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply
reinforce your religious stereotypes, and this weekend is not about
reinforcing your religious stereotypes.” Mack almost laughed out loud and
wanted to say, “You think? I’m over here barely believing that I’m not stark
raving mad!” Instead, he focused on what she had just said and regained his
composure. He believed, in his head at least, that God the Spirit, neither
male or female, but in spite of that, he was embarrassed to admit to himself
that all his visuals for God were very white and very male." (p.93)

Now that Mack realizes he has been duped into thinking of God as "very
white and very male," Mack begins to throw of the blinders of his religious
training as Papa further explains the theology of God's gender. Asking Her/Him
(Papa) why He/She had always revealed Himself as "Father" in the Bible, here is
Papa's answer...

"Well,” responded Papa, turning away from him and bustling around the
kitchen, “there are many reasons for that and some of them go very deep. Let
me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering
would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are
needed-but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its
absence."
(p.94)

If I'm reading this correctly, and I think I am, the idea is presented that God could have revealed Himself as "Mother" but chose not to because of all the single parent families without dads, or something like that. Therefore to fill in the social vacuum God revealed Himself as Father. In partial defense of The Shack three truths are implied and accurately reflected in this dialog between Mack and Papa:

1) God is spirit. He does not have gender. (He is "Other" than His creation.)

2) Male and female come equally from the image of God.

3) The Bible does, at times, use feminine qualities when referring to God...

"You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth." Dt 32:18

"From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the
heavens." Job 38:29

"As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of
a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God,
till he shows us his mercy." Ps 123:2

“For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself
back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant." Is
42:14

Here are some other things to balance the above considerations, and why I think The Shack would have been better served to cast a more Gandalf like figure for Papa:

1) There is no place in the Bible at all where God is given a feminine title or name. There are "ungendered," impersonal titles or descriptions of God (e.g., Rock, Fortress, Shield). But there are no feminine terms or pronouns (Mother, Sister, Bride, She, Her) used to describe God. Why is this??? Papa of The Shack informs us that it is in order to compensate for the lack of a father image which is in shorter supply in the world. But is this historically true?

2) Consider that the pagan world believed that the gods were male and female. There were Asherah and Anak and Nut and Isis, Teomat, and the Queen of Heaven, Ademitur, and Artemis. In fact these beings were very sexual and had intimate relations with each other. Consider the added insight of Dennis Prager, the Jewish social commentator...

"The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations.
In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the
Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with
his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El,
the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was
sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men."

Though William Young appears to me to give a somewhat "politically correct" anti-white male statement, as seen above, in distancing God from "Gandalf," he begs historical and theological accuracy. The biblical portrayal of God as Father was unique in the ancient world and it still is. The God of the Bible reveals Himself as Father to, in part, infinitely distance Himself from the erotic, sexualized, and power hungry deities pagans worshiped in ancient cultures who saw the world being birthed out of various mother goddesses. In contrast, the God of Israel (Yahweh) is seen as masculine and Father so as to hold to the gracious balance of Him being a God who personally and lovingly cares for His created world, but is distinct and infinitely above it. This is a huge social and religious reason why God did not reveal Himself with a female title.

3) But the bigger truth to keep in mind is that God is called Father not mainly to be separate from the pagan deities of Canaanite and Mesopotamian culture, but it reflects His eternal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of
unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and
mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom
15:5-6

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed
us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." Eph
1:3

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great
mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead..." 1 Pet 1:30

It is important to keep in mind that Christians have God as their Father through adoption. Jesus is the eternal Son of God by His essential nature. To be more clear, Jesus has always been Son to the Father before creation and throughout eternity. This is an even greater reason why we call God Father. "And a voice came from heaven:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Jn 3:16-17

Okay Anthony, but what about the scriptures you quoted above that give God feminine descriptions? Good question. These descriptions do not imply that we have a license to refer to God as "mother" or "she." Such language is simply a literary device that makes for a vivid description. For example, Paul said to the Thessalonians that he was, "gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children." (1 Th 2:6-7) Now, we wouldn't conclude from this statement that Paul was getting in touch with his feminine side. Hopefully we would not be so sloppy. So, when God is described at points with female qualities, that should not give us a license to attribute to God titles like "Mother" or pronouns like "She."

Unfortunately some evangelical theologians and pastors are doing this, and William Young has added a little strength and motivation to their cause with The Shack. Young indicates through the dialog quoted above that it is just as legitimate to picture God as Aunt Jemima as it is to picture him, as we traditionally do, like Gandalf. Perhaps we shouldn't picture God as either. But if we had to choose, look at this self-revelation God Himself given by Christ in Revelation 1...

"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I
turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,”dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace,
and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held
seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was
like the sun shining in all its brilliance." Rev 1:12-16

This looks more like Gandalf the White who resurrected after defeating the demon monster than the hip and shoulder shaking, syrup lady. Maybe our traditional prejudices of how we've traditionally pictured God are more enforced by the revelation of Scripture itself than Eurocentric "stupid white males."

So why all this time and digital images on this topic? Well, ideas have consequences. The further an idea is from where it should be when presented the further the idea can lead us astray is not corrected in time. Pastor Ben Patterson says, "It's a bit like the moonshot. When the rocket is aimed at the moon some 200,000 miles away, it has to be precise. What may be just a millimeter off within the first mile or so of the earth's atmosphere will be a huge miss when out toward the moon. Ideas have this same quality about them. They have their trajectories." Given that the Shack has been highly influential in people's thinking about God, I think there are ideas in the book that need to be reconsidered in light of the straight measuring stick of scripture. The Shack has much to commend. But when it comes to the description used of Papa, I'd prefer Young to have stayed more in boundary lines of biblical revelation, even Lord of the Rings.

The Church Is No Shack

One of the most helpful and, at the same time, disturbing elements about The Shack it its resistance to the the institutional church. The Shack has a decidedly anti-institutional stance with regards to the church. By institutional I mean "organized religion," where you have a committed groups of people who meet on an ongoing basis for "religious" purposes. This will include some form of defined leadership and regular "spiritual" practices & beliefs. (e.g., communion, baptism, teaching, etc.) There is a community of spiritual formation and allegiance, not just the island of individual preferences. I think this, in part makes The Shack very popular, in part, because it goes with the common grain in our society that wants kernel of spirituality while ditching the husk of the church or organized religion. But is this either good or realistic?

Here are some quotes from the early sections of the The Shack which lead me in part to draw this conclusion:

1) Mack is a theologically reflective person. We are told that at one point in his life he went to seminary on Australia..."Whatever happened, in his early twenties he eventually ended up in a seminary in Australia. When Mack had his fill of theology and philosophy he came back to the States, made peace with his mama and sisters, and moved out to Oregon where he met an married Nannette A. Samuelson." (p.9) The point of this observation is that Mack tried seminary (a religious institution to train clergy to fill the institution of the organized church), but he had his "fill." Usually when someone has had their "fill" of something they've had more than they can stomach.

2) The book admits that Mack is "not very religious." "But at the same time, Mack is not very religious. He seems to have a love/hate relationship with Religion, and maybe even with the God that he suspects is brooding, distant, and aloof. Little barbs of sarcasm occasionally spill through the cracks in his reserve like piercing darts dipped in poison from a well deep inside. Although we sometimes both show up on Sundays at the same local pew and pulpit Bible church, you can tell that he is not too comfortable there." (p.10) Religion or church is associated with something that is uncomfortable and shows God as "brooding, distant, and aloof."

3) When Mack inquires to Annie, the "matronly postmaster," about Tony, Mack's postal worker, she throws in this offhanded question....What’s wrong with you, Mack? Still smoking too much dope or do you just do that on Sunday mornings to make it through the church service? At this she started to laugh, as if caught off guard by the brilliance of her own sense of humor. (p.19) It does seem a bit unusual that in a real conversation someone would make that kind of offhanded comment about getting through church unless the author (William Young) had a real intention of making a subtle but very clear point. This is further confirmed as Young draws out Mack's inner reflections with his conversation with Annie...“Now Annie, you know I don’t smoke dope-never did, and don’t ever want to.” Of course Annie knew no such thing, but Mack was taking no chances on how she might remember the conversation in a day or two. Wouldn’t be the first time that her sense of humor morphed into a good story that soon became “fact.” He could see his name being added to the church prayer chain. (p.20)

4) Finally we see that one of Mack's favoritie programs is Bill Moyer's show... A quick glance at the clock told him that Bill Moyer’s show had just started; a favorite program that he tried never to miss. Moyer was one of a handful of people whom Mack would love to meet; a brilliant and outspoken man, able to express intense compassion for both people and truth with unusual clarity. (pp.22-23) Bill Moyers, as a journalist, has reported much on the power of "Myth" without the real need of any doctrines, creeds, that is guarded and taught with instituional or religious accountablilty.

Reflections:

1) As is always the case the instutional church is always in need of reform. This book is a good reminder that we, who are a part of the church, should not become distant or irrelevant to our original mission. The church too often becomes an institution which exists to serve its own puposes on the level of any human club. When this happenes a lot of problems occur. The Shack serves as a very sharp prod to point the church away from irrelevancy and self-service. (Yet do we needs to throw the baby out with...)

2) Without "organized" church the Christian faith will die. Church is not simply Christians who love God. It is an organized community centered with a called eldership, regular practice and discipleship guided with biblical accountaibility. Without the organized church Christianity will die.

3) It is possible to be a Christian without being a part of the organized church. However, it is impossible to be a mature Christian who is fulfilling his/her calling without the organized church. A quarterback can throw the ball without the the team, but he cannot play the game of football. So it is with the Christian. You can be saved and on your way to heaven but without the church you cannot fulfill the purposes for which God has put you here on this earth.

4) Being a part of the church is very challenging. Yet it was meant to be that way because that is what maturing in love requires. We are called to be with people and in ministries that have challenges and diffifulties because we are called to walk out of our comfort zones of self-centeredness and learn the true nature of Christ-like and sacrificial love. This is impossible to do in individual isolation or alone with just a few other people we are comfortable with.

5) Without the organized church the mission of Christ cannot be carried out. When God's purposes are carried out it is always done through the organized church.

In defense of William Young I think it is important to understand the background from which he writes: he was the child of missionaries in West Papua, among the Dani, a technologically stone age tribal people. There he was sexuallyabused. This radically altered his experience and interpretation of the world. Having worked with several people who have been sexually abused I have come to understand that there is often a strong resistance to traditional structures of authority. (Such as religious institutions and their leaders.) This is a "defense mechanism" to protect them from the fear of being abused again by a trusted authority figure. In an interview with World Magazine's Susan Olasky, Young, who is no longer a member of a church, said "(The institutional church) doesn't work for those of us who are hurt and those of us who are damaged. . . . If God is a loving God and there's grace in this world and it doesn't work for those of us who didn't get dealt a very good hand in the deck, then why are we doing this? . . . Legalism within Christian or religious circles doesn't work very well for people who are good at it. And I wasn't very good at it."

As Young writes from that lens I think he has a lot of valuable things to tell us. The church must more greatly reflect the love and unbounded joy of God. The church must war against the destructive legalisms that stain the fruit that should come from a Spirit-filled life. And as Young says in another section of the book...I suppose that since most of our hurts come through relationships so will our healing...(p.11) May the church be an organized and life-giving body of people to whom healing can come for those who have been broken.

The Unwanted Fruit of the Sexual Revolution (or) Why Women Are So Unhappy On Sex and the City (or) The Vindication of Dan Quayle

"Facts are stubborn things." So spoke Benjamin Franklin, or John Adams, or one of the great American Revolutionary fathers. Facts stubbornly speak in favor of "traditional" marriage and the family. The record shows the important benefits of marriage and monogamy.

Sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox has shown, for example, monogamous married people score better on all kinds of measures of well-being. They tend to be happier than others. Women whose husbands are the breadwinners also tend to be happier than others, and men who are married earn more and work harder than men who are not. Conversely (as Wilcox’s research has also shown) promiscuity on campus appears closely related to educational failure and other problems such as alcohol and drug consumption. Wilcox and the author Maggie Gallagher have also shown that widespread divorce and unwed motherhood—two offspring of the sexual revolution—are not only bad for many people but also costly for society.

Or so reports one time social liberal turned conservative, Mary Eberstadt. Sara McLanahan, similarly, has been doing important work from the days when she seemed practically a lone voice in a liberationist wilderness. Her seminal 1994 book, Growing Up with a Single Parent, co­authored with Gary Sandefur, features on its first page one of the most succinct indictments of the sexual revolution yet written:

“We have been studying this question for ten years, and in our opinion
the evidence is quite clear: Children who grow up with only one biological
parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household
with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or
educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when
the children are born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.”

Or consider more recent evidence of the revolution’s toll. One is an interesting book published a few years ago by Elizabeth Marquardt entitled Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Based on a 125-question survey administered with her coresearcher Norval Glenn to two groups—those who had grown up in divorced homes on the one hand, and those from intact homes on the other—Marquardt’s results show clearly the higher risks of dysfunction and disturbance that follow many of her subjects into adulthood.

This brings us to the moral core of the sexual revolution: the abundant evidence that its fruits have been worst for women and children. Even people who pride themselves on politically correct compassion, who criticize conservatives and religious believers for their supposed “lack of feeling,” fail to see the contradiction between their public professions of compassion and their private adherence to a liberationist ethic.

Think about those who are the most stalwart defenders of laissez-faire sexuality in the public square: libertarians, many of them young men, almost all of them (I have in mind the blogosphere) single. This is the demographic in which liberationism thrives, among those generally strongest, in the prime of their lives and operating on the assumption only of the revolution’s benefits for themselves.

And just as so many passionate and enlightened people ignore the fact that kids have been damaged by an anything-goes zeitgeist, so too do they ignore this related fact: The sexual revolution has been a disaster for many women. Like hostages in the grip of Stockholm syndrome, feminists—above almost all other interest groups, pornographers excepted—cling to the defense of the sexual revolution. How many feminist-minded students who demonstrate for abortion rights realize that in many parts of the world, including the United States, girls are more likely to be aborted than boys?

Though it’s regarded as outrageous to say so in our metrosexual, unchivalrous times, women are more vulnerable than men to physical abuse. The empirical evidence bears this out. Women who are divorced or unmarried are far more likely—twice as likely, according to one study—to suffer physical abuse than are women in an intact marriage. To emphasize the ways in which sexual liberationism has injured women is not to say that men are unaffected. But with many men, the sexual revolution seems more like a slow-acting virus whose damage does not become apparent till much later in life. As Linda Waite, for one, has emphasized, divorced men have higher rates of depression, alcoholism, and other forms of “risk taking”—including such pedestrian oversights as failing to go to the doctor.

For women, though, the fallout from the revolution appears more immediate and acute. It is women who have abortions and get depressed about them, women who are usually left to raise children alone when a man leaves for someone younger, women who typically take the biggest financial hit in divorce, and women who fill the pages of such magazines as Cosmopolitan and Mirabella and liberationy websites like Salon with sexual doublespeak.

Just look at any one of those sources, or take in a segment of those women’s morning talk shows or a random ten minutes of Sex and the City. All reveal a wildly contradictory mix of chatter about how wonderful it is to be liberated by sex, on the one hand—and how impossible it has become to find a good, steady, committed boyfriend or husband on the other. It’s as if, say, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were to put out magazines that were half pitches for vegetarianism and half glossy pages of pork and beef and chicken simmering in sumptuous sauces. If something like that were to happen, people would notice the contradiction. But because of the will to disbelieve in some of the consequences of the sexual revolution, they don’t when the subject is sex.

The Shack, written by William Young, was originally penned as a Christmas gift for his six children. He has no intention to publish it. What stands out about the success of the book is that it acheived its sales success largely by word of mouth. It is a self-published book which originally spent about $300 on marketing. As of January 2009, The Shack had over 5 million copies in print, and had been at number 1 on the New York Times best seller list for 35 weeks.It is a grassroots cultural phenomena, not a commercialized by-product.

Many evangelical leaders have been very critical of the book, and for some understandable reasons. Chuck Colson, who I have the deepest respect, wrote an article for his Breakpoint, "Stay Out Of The Shack." Albert Mohler has called the book "deeply troubling." For whatever justified concerns there are with The Shack, (I believe there are some.) I think the strongest critics of the book fail to realize that the book is filling a spiritual hole and a theological vacuum in the evangelical world.

Specifically...The Shack makes a very brave, daring, and thoughtful attempt to tackle the reality of brutal evil and unimaginable pain in the world while reconciling it with the love and unbounded joy of God. (It is a Theodicy.) To tackle this problem is certainly not new, even for a novel. What is new is that Young does it at the level where it really counts and makes the biggest difference...he takes theology and addresses it at the level of the human heart. Young has said himself that the title of the book is a metaphor for “the house you build out of your own pain.”

In fact, Young confronts the reality of evil within "religious" society itself. Look at how he portrays the childhood of Mack, the main character of the story...

Mack was born somewhere in the Midwest, a farm boy in an Irish-American family committed to calloused hands and rigorous rules. Although externally religious, his overly strict church-elder father was a closet drinker, especially when the rain didn’t come, or came too early, and most of the times between. Mack never talks much about him, but when he does his face loses emotion like a tide going out leaving dark and lifeless eyes. From the few stories Mack has told me, I know his daddy was not a fall-asleep-happy kind of alcoholic but a vicious mean beat-your wife-and then –ask-God-for-forgiveness drunk. (Pg. 9)

Look how Mack is abusively treated by his "religious" father...

It all came to a head when thirteen-year-old Mackenzie reluctantly bared his soul to a church leader during a youth revival. Overtaken by the conviction of the moment, Mack confessed in tears that he hadn’t done anything to help his mama as he witnessed, on more than one occasion, his drunken dad beat her unconscious. What Mack failed to consider was that his confessor worked and churched with his father, and by the time he got home his daddy was waiting for him on the front porch with his mama and sisters conspicuously absent. He later learned that they had been shuttled off to his Aunt May’s in order to give his father some freedom to teach his rebellious son a lesson about respect. For almost two days, tied to the big oak at the back of the house, he was beaten with a belt and Bible verses every time his dad woke from a stupor and put down his bottle. (p.8)

This background provided in the forward section of the book sets the stage where we will see one of the most imaginative portrayals of the Trinitian love of God which has been lost and greatly misunderstood by the ones who are called to be the caretakers of that proclamation and reality.

Conclusions:

1) The Shack calls us to rethink the church and a lot of religious society.

2) It is an apologetic or theodicy for a strand of evangelical Christianity. But it is an apologetic which defends God and the Christian faith but radically distances itself from the traditional church. It does so, I think, because many people are greatly turned off by the abuses and apathy of the traditional church, which some people would view as part of the problem of evil in the world.

3) I think there are theological and anthropological problems in The Shack, but in my opinion it is a book that needs to challenge the lovelessness and abuses that can go on in the church and religious institutions.