The Shack vs Mark Driscoll

Over the last couple of days I’ve been following some interesting discussion stemming from a couple of facebook posts by Matthew Henderson (pastor at my old church in Aberdeen) which link to articles talking about the theology and ideas put across in William Paul Young’s The Shack.

It’s been very interesting, the responses ranging in subject from bits of heresy and poor theology to how parts of the book have helped and encouraged individual readers, to the difficult balance between exact theological accuracy and artistic creativity, to some commentators utter disbelief that anyone could take any word in The Shack seriously.

I enjoyed the book as a whole, and found it helpful in thinking through some interesting ideas about the nature of God, some of which I agreed with, others which I didn’t. Perhaps the biggest issues in my mind are that it doesn’t really portray the holiness (or “otherness”) of God that well, and the general impression that sin isn’t that much of a problem (see Tim Keller's post here for more on this).

In one of the comments posted, this little talk from Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church was highlighted. Now, I’ve heard a few of his sermons from time to time, and on the whole I like a lot of what he says. And on this one I generally agree with what he’s saying: that Christians not being sure of what they believe is a big problem. But I found myself disliking the way he went about it - he tends to present very bald statements in a “take it from me” kind of way while his audience (how many of whom have bothered to read the book?) chuckle appreciatively in the background. I don’t like the way in which he condenses long discussions and ideas down to pithy accusations. Here’s a few examples, along with my slightly peevish responses :o) :

“The book is about the trinity” - well yes, but primarily it’s about grief and loss.

“It’s graven imagery” - (minor tangent: nice to see you’re quoting from a nice modern translation of the Bible, completed in 1611) - I don’t know, but I don’t think the author is suggesting we go out and start worshipping big black women. So what about all other works of fiction that seek to suggest something about God? What about music and songs? Artworks? I heard a quote somewhere recently that said something like “It’s a shame that the evangelical church is so suspicious of interpretation and creativity, except in the sermon every week.”

“It’s goddess worship” - eh? I think you’d be hard-pressed to come to this conclusion from the book - it makes very clear that in this story (a work of fiction no less), God happens to choose to reveal himself to Mack in this way (if you don’t know the book, the God-the-Father character reveals himself to Mack, the main character as a large african mother-figure with the name Papa) because it’s the form to which Mack will best respond at that time - in another part of the book he appears as a father figure. Interestingly, the Bible refers to both masculine and feminine qualities of God (as you might expect, given that both human male and female are created in the image of God), but generally refers to him as, well, Him.

“It’s modalism” (that is, the belief that the trinity is one, but acting in 3 different capacities (modes, I guess) when the fancy takes him) - “Papa says: “I am truly human in Jesus”.” - Actually, my overall impression from the book was of three very distinct characters, yet somehow all one - which seems a reasonably fair reflection of how we generally (try to) understand the trinity. In any case, you could equally read the above quoted sentence in the form “I (the three-in-one Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) am truly human in Jesus”.

But the one that really annoyed me most of all was his opening statement:

“How many of you have read the book The Shack? ...(hands up)... if you haven’t, DON’T”

WHAT?! What kind of useless advice is this? How can we possibly hope to engage with any of these issues from a position of ignorance? We should be reading it AND ALSO weighing it up against scripture to find its holes and inaccuracies. Since the book is out there in society already, perhaps we should be making use of it to challenge and engage with people (both affirming the helpful ideas and countering the bits we’re concerned about) rather than indignantly picking holes in it.

So pastors, please keep teaching the sound theology, but how about teaching the rest of us how to weigh up things like this against the Bible and to counter them ourselves. As Mark implies, the major problem itself is perhaps not so much the book itself, but its widespread undiscerning acceptance as truth.

But I think it’s equally dangerous to create a bunch of followers who can now counter an argument in favour of The Shack with one-liners such as “It’s goddess worship” without having bothered to read the book and weigh it up against scripture themselves.

Spleen vented. Thank you. What's everyone else's take on The Shack?
J

p.s. please stop shouting at me - the amount of my agreement with your sermon is not related (in a good way, at least) to your decibel level.

Odd things we sing 4 - Amazing Grace (v6)

“The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call’d me here below,
Will be forever mine”

- one of the original verses of Newton’s great hymn - not one of the ‘traditional’ four that we normally sing, but resurrected for inclusion in the new Chris Tomlin version.

Anyone care to comment on exactly what this means, and where I might find it in my Bible? Alternatively, do you think it’s just a metaphor describing the most solid and stable things we know as tenuous and shaky compared to the constancy and steadfastness of God’s love for us?

I’ll gladly join in singing it again once I understand what it means. Till then, it makes me uncomfortable...

J

Genre-hopping and a 1* review

I am the proud owner of my very first 1-star review!

You can read it here at Louder Than The Music.

I’d been pre-warned that the reviewer hadn’t really warmed to it, so it was with some trepidation that I clicked the link.

But that quickly melted into amusement as I read through the article - you see, I’m still not quite convinced it’s a review of my work. It is, however, an interesting case study on the preconceptions which accompany different genres.

So, next I headed over to that oracle of all tenuous wisdom: wikipedia, and specifically the ‘New Age music’ article.

An interjection at this point: for some reason, when the reviewer put my CD into iTunes, it labelled up the CD’s genre as ‘New Age’. I don’t know why. On my iTunes it’s labelled ‘Singer/songwriter’, and on the iTunes Music Store it appears to have fallen into the ‘Religious’ category (which isn’t necessarily much of an improvement!)

So, yes, wikipedia. It has two definitions:

“New Age music with an ambient sound that has the explicit purpose of aiding meditation and relaxation, or aiding and enabling various alternative spiritual practices, such as alternative healing, Yoga practise, guided meditation, chakra auditing, and so on.”

Not very me. Although I can see that the first track (an instrumental intro to the album, all of 54 seconds long) might reinforce that view.

“Music which is found in the New Age section of the record store.”

Haha, that’s brilliant! So, basically it’s the “couldn’t figure out where else to put it” category. I can live with that, especially when the other artists and influences mentioned include the likes of Pink Floyd, Mike Oldfield, Brian Eno, Jean-Michel Jarre, and Philip Glass - elements of which you might well find subconsciously incorporated into my music.

I really don’t mind that the reviewer didn’t like it - after all, all art appreciation is subjective. (Around the time of making Puzzle I shared a flat with a heavy metal enthusiast - whilst we could both appreciate the work and skill put into the music the other listened to, we would have never actively chosen to listen to it. Perhaps I need to be more broad-minded.)

But I do mind that the reviewer got so blinded by the New Age thing that they evidently didn’t bother listening to the music. Where are the references to particular lyrics, images or musical bits they liked or disliked? Where’s the discussion of the themes that the artist might be trying to portray? How about even mentioning a particular track by name? Anything? I mean, I enjoy the genius of Scrubs as much as the next man, but what’s it got to do with me? Ah well, can't please everyone...

J

(In the interests of contrast, you might also wish to have a look at this slightly more positive example at New Life From Old, or listen for yourself at DLDown's bandcamp page.)

Odd things we sing 3 - From the Inside Out

I was reminded of this one when we sang it the other day. I really quite like this song. We very nearly picked it for our wedding service, but eventually decided against it. I think it might be something to do with these lyrics from the 2nd verse (full lyrics here):

Your will above all else
My purpose remains
The art of losing myself
In bringing You praise

Now, I’m pretty certain I know what they mean: it’s about humbling ourselves, putting God in first place ahead of ourselves, forgetting about our own wants for a while as we give God glory.

Yet for me it still has something about it that makes me stop before singing this verse. Maybe it’s only me who sees it this way, but the first time I sang this song, I took these lines as implying that we should be aiming to lose ourselves in some kind of zen-like trance while worshipping God. Which doesn’t sit comfortably with me.

People experience meeting with God in all kinds of different ways, but I believe we are to do so fully engaging our minds just as much as we might engage our senses. God made us intelligent thinking beings, and cutting that part out of our worship experience just seems wrong to me. True worship comes as a response to understanding what God has done for us, and that involves using our brains.

So there you go, a serious point out of a misunderstanding of some slightly ambiguous lyrics :o)

Petty engineering design rant 2 - central heating controllers

So, second post in my ‘being irritated by little things which really shouldn’t matter, but somehow just do’ series:

Now, obviously my heating system needs some method of user input, which should preferably be nice and simple to operate, logically laid out, quick to adjust and so on (and perhaps in these carbon-saving times, designed in a manner which might encourage me to use it slightly less).

I quite like the older-style mechanical ones - you know, the ones with the rotary dial bit with little teeth you flip up and down, or pins you put in holes, or something like that. One glance at it tells you exactly what it’s doing - when it’s going to come on, how long for, and when it’s going to switch off again. To alter the setting it’s dead simple as well - flip a few teeth, move a pin or two - takes about 10 seconds from start to finish.

Our boiler’s controller, however, is a clear casualty of “it ain’t broke, but we’ve got to get the word “digital” in here somewhere even if it kills us” syndrome:












I had a look just now to check what it was set to, and it took me 21 button presses! 21!!! And that’s assuming you get them in the right order to navigate yourself through its invisible menu system (it’s like one of those ancient text-based computer games: “There are exits to the South, South and South. You can see a drowning polar bear. You are holding a garlic press and half a packet of cheese-and-onion Hula Hoops. What would you like to do?” - except much less sensible and intuitive). To actually change the settings will take 30+ presses, again assuming you make no mistakes along the way.

Also, it would be amazingly useful if it had a ‘boost’ button like some do, which allow you to stick it on for another hour, safe in the knowledge that it will turn itself back off again by itself so you can just forget about it. Our one? Well, hitting ‘advance’ makes it go on until the next set ‘off’ time - which could be anytime within the next 23 hours and 59 minutes. To find out when, if you’ll remember, will require an error-free succession of not less than 21 button presses while crouched at an awkward angle at the bottom of a dark cupboard.

Useful. Not. Grrrr.

Vociferation concluded.
J

Odd things we sing 2 - Days of Elijah

Right, well, the purpose of this series is not just to slag off other people’s songs, but to try and explain (or guess) what the writer might have been getting at, and if I’m going to criticise, to do so in some semblance of a constructive manner.

Post no.2 is Days of Elijah by Robin Mark. This is one that went through a phase of being sung all the time, then through an equally protracted phase of being rejected and denounced by everyone (wrongly, in my opinion). Here’s the words:

These are the days of Elijah,
Declaring the word of the Lord.
And these are the days of Your servant Moses,

Righteousness being restored.

And though these are days of great trial,
Of famine and darkness and sword,

Still, we are the voice in the desert crying
'Prepare ye the way of the Lord!'



Behold He comes riding on the clouds,
Shining like the sun at the trumpet call;

Lift your voice, it's the year of jubilee,

And out of Zion's hill salvation comes.



These are the days of Ezekiel,

The dry bones becoming as flesh;
And these are the days of Your servant David,

Rebuilding a temple of praise.

These are the days of the harvest,
The fields are as white in Your world,

And we are the labourers in Your vineyard,
Declaring the word of the Lord!

There's no God like Jehovah.
There's no God like Jehovah!

In Nick Page’s wonderful book “And Now Let's Move into a Time of Nonsense” (you should all read it, especially if you’re at all involved in worship leading or songwriting - humorous, relevant and useful), he talks a bit about being careful of putting too many obscure biblical references into a song - and this song is the worst offender - The Source music book has something like 17 different scripture references at the top of Days of Elijah’s page.

And I quite agree - songwriters should be making sure that our songs are readily accessible and understandable by the majority of those who might sing it, and worship leaders need to be choosing songs in the same way (as well as being true, relevant, edifying, etc).

But this is one song that, I think, has been unnecessarily vilified, because the theme of the song is actually dead simple. Here it is:

In the past (“those days”), God did lots of amazing things (through unextraordinary people like you and me).
Now (“these days”), God is still doing lots of amazing things (through unextraordinary people like you and me).
“Those days” are “these days” - there is no discontinuity in the work God is doing.

Or, even more simply: God worked. God is still working. He used ordinary people like Elijah, Moses, Ezekiel, David then. He uses us now.

So worship leaders, use discernment when picking your songs, absolutely. But if you’re quibbling over a song like this because you think people might not understand, then take the time to learn what the writer meant, and take 20 seconds before you sing it to explain what it’s about. Everyone wins.

Sub-zero Architecture

We stayed at a big house near Aberfoyle for a week over Christmas. This is what happens when you set 3 engineers loose in the snow. I defy you to deny its awesomeness.
J