Michael's Blog

Book Review: The Shack

I just completed The Shack by William P Young. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone.

It is a difficult book to explain.

First, it is a novel. It's the story of a man and his family in the midst of tremendous tragedy. It is also a story about where God was and is in their lives and circumstance. On this level, it's a good story that will keep you turning the pages.

Second, it is deeply theological. Within the narrative, the author seeks to explain/illustrate deep theological truths in a way that we can begin to get our heads and hearts around. By putting theology in the context of this specific story, we can begin to see what it means that God is good, God is sovereign, God is loving and people are free. On this level, The Shack tackles tough questions without resulting to slogans, sound bites and proof texting.

Third, it is deeply relational. A friend of mine once told me they were going to write a theology of relationships. I'm not sure how that is coming, but The Shack accomplishes just that. What does one God revealed in three persons really mean? How does that work? What does it mean that Jesus is closer than a brother? What does it mean when we say the Holy Spirit indwells us? What does it mean when we say God is eternally present? Where is God in the midst of tragedy? On this level, the book gives a fresh picture of what it means to be in relationship with a God. It also gives us a fresh look at the trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.

Fourth, it is a book about trust. We use the word "faith" a lot, but I've always understood faith as an active and ongoing trust in God. Do we really trust God? Do we really believe God is good? These are important questions and themes that run throughout the book. They are answered by giving us a glimpse of how God may be present and at work even when we don't see it.

Fifth, it is a book about judgement, power and control. This theme hit me the hardest as I read. How often are our relationships about power and control? How often do we judge others without knowledge? How often do we judge God in our attempts to control our own lives?

Sixth, it is a book about mutual submission as a better way. All the things Jesus said about the greatest being the servant of all is demonstrated through the narrative. When there is love and trust and service, no body has to be in charge. Power and control are our responses to a world where God is not trusted and people are trying to go it alone.

Seventh, it is a book about the full impact of human rebellion and the love of God. The world is broken. We are broken. But God loves us.

I'm going to stop there. Go to theshackbook.com for ongoing discussion. The book is causing quite a stir. Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Seattle fame doesn't like it. You can find his critique on youtube. Having read the book, his assessment seems a bit weak (almost as if he didn't read the book), but that's another issue.

I would love to see a book on the theological underpinnings of the book. I found the theology to be both orthodox and fresh. Young is seeing these things in the context of real life, not the ivory tower, which makes the theology come alive. Writing a book with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as main characters takes courage. I'm glad he did.

If you have read The Shack, let me know what you thought. If you haven't, I highly recommend it.

Pray for Myanmar

If you pray, please pray for the people of Myanmar (formerly Burma). After a recent cyclone, a humanitarian crises - including food shortages, undrinkable water, and disease - is occurring in Myanmar. Some estimates put the possible loss of life as high as 100,000 people.

Right now, the Myanmar government (a Military junta) will not allow international aid workers into the country. Every moment that aid is delayed means more lives lost.

Please pray that the Myanmar government will do what is best for the people suffering and open their borders to aid workers.

Best last lines of a book...

I just finished reading The Catcher in the Rye for the first time. I didn't get into literature too much in high school and college, so I'm catching up (no pun intended) on some classics. I'm especially interested in great books that have been banned at one time or another in our culture.

In my opinion, the last lines of The Catcher in the Rye are among the best last lines of any book I've read. It's almost as if J. D. Salinger started with those lines and then wrote a whole story that would make sense of those lines.

I've read a few interpretations of the novel by others. Some of their stuff is way over my head. To me it's a story about how Holden navigates the painful world of intimate relationships. He craves intimate relationships because he is terribly lonely and isolated. At the same time, he keeps others at a distance by picking them apart for all their "phony" behavior. That serves to protect him from grief and loss when relationships break.

That's why you don't tell anyone anything, right? "Because when you do, you start missing them." Even the simplest act of sharing your story with another person begins a human relationship that carries the possibility of pain and loss. Being with people is risky. How much do we risk? How much of ourselves do we offer others? What's the cost of being close?

Anyway, just some questions as I think about The Catcher in the Rye. I haven't even started thinking through the whole reason for the title - the way Holden sees himself and his role in the world.

If you've read the book, let me know what you think.

What Wright is missing...

This is my last post on Jeremiah Wright. I think this is what is missing...

Balance: Much of what Jeremiah Wright says is true. He makes some compelling points about how American foreign policy is perceived by those on the other end of it. He does not gloss over some bleak moments in American history. He rightly identifies the social conditions that plague our inner cities and especially minorities. However, we don't hear much in the way of how things are improving, what we can do to change, and what we get right as a nation. It's much easier to hear the hard stuff, when the good stuff is also present. We do many good things in our nation and around the globe. Are we perfect? By no means. Can we improve? Without a doubt. Balance would go a long way.

Hope: The more I listen to Jeremiah Wright, the more I long to hear words of hope. I think of the psalmist who says, "I look to the hills, where does my hope come from? My hope comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth." As a Pastor, it is important to provide hope that is grounded in the timeless truths of scripture and the promises of God. Even if Wright is correct in his assessment of the socio/political conditions in America, hope that things can change comes from faith in a God that liberates.

If he could add these two things to his message, he would be consistent with most people of faith that also believe that following Jesus means caring for the poor, the naked, the oppressed and the marginalized.

Unless he does something else to catch my attention, I'm moving on from Jeremiah Wright. I pray God blesses him and continues to use him in the lives of his congregation and community.

Kudos to Glenn Beck

Against the cries that Glenn Beck (and others) have taken Jeremiah Wright out of context, Glenn Beck devoted a full hour of radio air time to playing Rev. Wright's comments in context. Well done.

While I still do not agree with Mr. Beck's assessment of Wright's comments, at least he gave his radio audience more information by which to draw their own conclusions.

One of the fascinating things about the whole Wright controversy, in my opinion, is what it reveals about how one's experience and presuppositions color the way they view the gospel of Jesus. In a past post I talked about radical Christianity vs. Imperial Christianity. Another way to look at it is through the lens of individual/consumeristic gospel vs. a God's shalom vision.

Did Jesus ONLY come to earth to die on the cross for my sins? Or, in a larger sense, did Jesus come to fulfill God's shalom vision for all of creation? I think it is the later.

What I mean by that is that God's concern has always been for the shalom of all creation. God created the world in peace (meaning that all people had everything they needed to thrive and develop as God intended) and is restoring the world to peace or shalom. When we think of heaven, we don't think if a place with sickness, poverty, death, war, domestic violence, or a lack of education. The way we imagine heaven is the closest we come to understanding the shalom God intended.

When Jesus comes as redeemer, he talks of his own ministry in terms consistent with the restoration of God's shalom vision. He brought sight to the blind, the lame walked, the poor were fed, the widows were treated justly, the lonely were comforted, the prisoner wasn't abandoned, the naked were clothed, etc. The way that this is accomplished is through a redeemed people, forgiven for their sin, in right relationship with God through Jesus and thus ABLE to live in right relationship with others. In that way, the gospel that saves my soul is also very political. In that politics is the relationship between the polis, the people, being redeemed by Jesus and commissioned to transform the world is radically political. Followers of Jesus are called to live the way Jesus did in relationship with other people.

That means that we are also to be about bringing sight to the blind, freedom for the captives, justice for the oppressed, health to the sick, etc., etc., etc. Wherever God's shalom is absent, God's people are called to act - not just to talk a good game - but to act. I like the way James says it; if we see a brother who is hungry and say go, be well and have something to eat, but we don't give them food, what good have we done? Is that the kind of faith that saves? I don't think so.

So when I listen to Jeremiah Wright, I hear a leader who is saying he is not going to stand by while a certain segment of God's family is neglected by society. God's shalom vision doesn't just mean that my kids have good schools, proper health care, food to eat, clothes to wear, and shelter over their heads. God's shalom vision means that all people should have that experience. And as John the Baptist said, nobody should have two coats until everyone has one (ouch, ouch, ouch!).

That flies in the face of our individualistic, consumer culture that sees personal salvation as Jesus only aim, economic prosperity as God's blessing, and the ability to consume as the definition of success. If you don't think this is accurate why do a strong majority of Americans believe the phrase, "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible? If you read the Bible, it seems like the whole point is that God helps those who are humble, poor and weak - those who can't help themselves. And those who can help themselves - the prideful, the rich, the secure are in spiritual peril because they never learn to trust in God.

I may have drifted from my original starting point, but what I often hear from Beck and others is a kind of "Jesus came to save my soul but that has nothing to do with society at large and politics in specific" understanding of faith. I don't see it. If you do, I'm open to correction...

New website at CPT.org

Christian Peacemaker Teams has a new website. Check it out here. The new site is an awesome improvement in both design and function.

"Peaceful" Anabaptists?

16th Century Anabaptists (often called the radical reformers) are often referred to as peaceful people. That is a fair description in that they did not intentionally seek to divide people for the sake of dividing them. It is also fair because (with a few exceptions) they believed in non-violence. In a recent post, Brian McLaren said he liked Anabaptists because "they aren't as likely as some religious folks to kill or torture you (literally or metaphorically)."

In today's understanding, however, peaceful people are often represented by the words of Rodney King. "Why can't we just all get along?" They are perceived as weak people who avoid confrontation of any kind for the sake of "getting along" or at least not fighting. This does not describe anabaptists very well.

Yes, they were non-violent. No, they did not value "getting along" above all else. They believed that what Jesus said and did was what they were called to say and do. If what the church, government or other individuals were doing and saying didn't match what Jesus said, there was a problem. No, they wouldn't kill you or try to use violence, oppression or coercive means to persuade you, but there was a problem. There was an even BIGGER problem if you tried to get them to go against what they believed Jesus said and did.

The best modern example of what they did was Martin Luther King, Jr (he did not, in my understanding, identify himself with anabaptists, they just had some things in common). He wasn't violent, but he didn't believe in peace at all cost. Especially if that meant that his people continued to be treated unjustly by others and the government.

The phrase "non-violent resistance" might be best. Fighting injustice at the personal and systemic level without using the weapons of the world is King's legacy. That is the shared legacy of the Anabaptists which is now on display through historic peace churches, many emergent folks, and followers of Jesus who take his teaching about enemies seriously (like the folks at CPT)

Peace-makers often seem like people who are stirring up trouble. They often do. If the status quo is injustice and violence, then working to end injustice and violence involves some major "boat rocking". The people who benefit from the status quo don't really like that and, in many cases, are more than willing to use violence, intimidation and coercion to "steady the boat" again.

The early anabaptists were boat rockers - no doubt about it. They weren't rocking the boat just to be rocking the boat, however. They were faithfully following the life and teaching of Jesus which brought them into conflict with the powers that be in their day. Sometimes they were successful in winning others over. Many times they died while singing hymns in the fire of their persecutors. They were non-violent, but not passive. They were people of peace, but not peaceful.

Wright is divisive...but along what lines?

Last night I watched Jeremiah Wright speaking at the Detroit chapter of the NAACP dinner. He is an engaging speaker who is obviously very intelligent and well prepared. As soon as he was done, the talking heads on the 24 hour cable news networks were off to the races. It was obvious that all they were listening for was possible controversial statements that might hurt Obama's political career. What was absent was any meaningful engagement with the ideas and issues Wright raised.

I like to listen to talk radio. This morning on the political shows (Beck and Limbaugh) the topics also included Wright. After listening to them talk, I wondered if we had seen the same speech. They both highlighted how they felt Wright was a racist who was sewing the seeds of racial division. Again, I didn't here him that way.

To my ears, the main point of his speech was simple - Different does not mean deficient. The world will change when people stop seeing those who are different as deficient and treat them - not as better than or lesser than - but as people. He said many funny things on the way to demonstrating those differences. If you are a white person (and I am - if you couldn't tell by my pic) you might have been uncomfortable with his portrayal of our rhythmic clapping - but only because he pretty much nailed it.

The more I listen, the more I believe people are divided over Wright, not because of race, but for a different reason. I find the dividing line is between "radical Christianity" and "Imperial Christianity". "Radical Christianity", like that practiced by the early Anabaptists, is fiercely committed to the way of Jesus, as taught and lived by Jesus, in every day life. When obedience to Jesus conflicts with country or government, they follow Jesus and accept the consequences without violence. "Imperial Christianity" has more in common with Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire. It is a view that sees religion and government as connected, such that obedience to the government is obedience to God. In their view (not mine) to speak against God is to speak against country and to speak against country is to speak against God.

In my experience, the more a person identifies with the "God and country" message of "Imperial Christianity", the more they find Wright's comments offensive. They don't want to listen to his arguments and consider for a moment that he might be on to something. Not only that, but they don't want to consider that he might be on to something that is congruent with the scriptures. If you believe that America is God's country and can do no wrong then Wright is not your guy.

But there are many others, who all the while loving their country, are willing to take a long, hard look at both the good and bad of our nation. As committed followers of Jesus, they are willing to measure every action and attitude against the life and teaching of Jesus. When what we say and do is out of step with what Jesus said and did, there is a problem. A "radical" follower of Jesus owes primary allegiance to Jesus. God really does come first. And building the Kingdom of God is the top priority. While not everyone in this camp likes Jeremiah Wright, they are at least open to consider what he is saying from within the prophetic, Biblical tradition.

Instead of focusing on the politics of Jeremiah Wright and how it may or may not impact the Democratic Presidential race, as followers of Jesus, we owe it to brother Wright to hear him through the filter of faith. Does Jeremiah Wright stand firmly in the Biblical, prophetic tradition? Is he saying things that are consistent with the message of scripture as clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus? If not, where is he off? If so, how is God calling us to respond?

The Imperial Christian tradition has no room for words like those of Wright. Wright's words (and other leaders like him) when carefully considered and measured against the words of Scripture, drive a wedge between the followers of Jesus and Empire. They threaten the status quo and call for a new relationship between people of all races. The last thing Empires can stand is people caring about each other and unifying against the injustice and oppression on which Empires thrive. Empires have always needed religious support to provide a stamp of moral approval on their actions. When that support is removed, the "Empire" has no clothes. And a people willing to sacrifice self for others? Empires can't survive it...ask Rome!

Something to think about as we continue to watch and listen to words about religion in the public square.

Asked to help?

When was the last time the community came to your church and said, "Hey, aren't you the guys who are supposed to follow Jesus by loving and caring for people? Can you help us with this poverty problem, crime problem, domestic violence problem, addiction problem, etc., etc., etc.?"

I bet, if it ever has happened, it has either been a very long time or you don't live in America. It's one of the features of living in a post-Christian context. People see the church as the institution that tends to the religious and spiritual needs of individuals who wish to have those needs met. They don't see the church as a movement of people who are here to change the world for the better by listening to and living out the way of Jesus in community.

That means that if we (followers of Jesus) are going to be faithful to Jesus' call, we can't wait for the culture to come to us! We need to seize the initiative without apology, to love people in the name of Jesus, work for justice (not just a national slogan, but an actual social experience for all), celebrate and extend mercy, and do it as humble followers of Jesus who did all of this for us first.

The church is not, nor has it ever been, a religious 7-11 store where you go to get your needs met. The church is a movement of people who follow Jesus and do His will in the world.

Give him a hearing...

If you ever said anything negative about Jeremiah Wright in the midst of his politically motivated character assassination, you should watch the interview with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Moyers. Here are four clips...

This is where I come down on Wright...this is a man that was taken out of context to paint him as an unpatriotic American in order to hinder Barak Obama's run for president.

If you get a chance to see the whole interview, check it out.