"It's a work of fiction that's really focused on the journey of a human being to deal with the junk in his life that includes his misunderstanding of the character and nature of God."
For those who have been positively impacted by The Shack, you are in for a real treat in our upcoming EChurch post. Last weekend William Paul Young, who wrote the runaway bestseller, was invited to address the congregation at Emmanuel Enid. This was a repeat visit because he first came in 2009.
Here is a clip featuring Paul Young and announcing his visit four years ago. It is a great introduction to the author and his book.
If you conduct an internet search on critical reviews of The Shack, you will find quite a few of them. The Calvinistas seemed to have most to say about what they believe to be wrong with Young's inspirational book. Instead of linking to those reviews, we are featuring Mark Driscoll's critique of The Shack. He likely covers what most of the Neo-Reformed crowd had to say in the way of criticism and condemnation.
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk (who is greatly missed), wrote a book review on The Shack and heartily recommended it. He then wrote a follow-up post called Shack Attack! to counter the criticism coming from those whom we call Calvinistas. There are a few other related posts on the I-Monk website that are also worth reading. link and link
Four years ago a Baptist university in North Carolina — Gardner-Webb — had Paul Young come and speak. It's a four-year university situated 40 miles west of Charlotte. Here is a video from that visit which we believe sums up what Young was trying to accomplish with his 'fictional' book (written primarily for his children).
Paul Young's testimony (in our upcoming EChurch post) is lengthy and incredibly revealing. We are amazed by his transparency and believe that his willingness to be vulnerable may be the secret to his much loved book. We will be featuring additional messages by Paul Young over the next month or so (when Wade Burleson is planning to be away).
May God's will continue to be done with The Shack as well as with Paul Young's greatly anticipated follow-up book, Cross Roads.
UPDATE – 4/19/13 @ 9:40 pm
Wade Burleson has also written a thoughtful review of The Shack link as well as a follow-up post link. Thanks, Thy Peace!
Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 10:1-11:15 John 6:43-71 Psalm 107:1-43 Proverbs 15:1-3
His second book, “Cross Roads” is even better.:^)
http://is.gd/817S2Q
Wade Burleson > Posts on “Shack”
BD,
I recently gave Cross Roads to my hubby for his birthday. I have just started reading it and may do a book review for our readers. 🙂
I have not read The Shack though I do remember reading a lot of OMG OMG OMG critiques of it a few years back. I am much more aware now than I was then that there are a lot of hurting people in and out of the church (thank you TWW for helping me come to this awareness). I remember that some of things I read about the book gave me some pause but at the moment I can’t remember what any of them were except for people getting upset that the Father and Holy Spirit were “incarnated” in the book.
I suppose I can sort of relate to both sides of the Shack debate, as I enjoy writing fiction and creating/psychoanalyzing characters but am also a bit of a “doctrine hound.” On the one hand theology and doctrine are hugely important – but on the other hand I’ve tried to construct stories with “airtight” theological allegories and discovered it makes for a pretty crappy plot and a really contrived “moral” at the end. Blegh. No one wants to read that! Heck, the author might not even have the stamina to writeit. And as others have pointed out, I seriously doubt Young actually thinks that the Father and Holy Spirit are incarnated in real life. Let alone that they are a big black woman and a willowy Asian girl.
I also suspect that many of the people who lambast The Shack have no problem handing their kids The Chronicles of Narnia, which, if taken literally, teaches a ransom theory of the atonement (which most of them would decry as heresy) and maybe even universalism. And if I’m not mistaken, Middle Earth is technically “polytheistic” but they’ll still use a Walking with Frodo devotional at their church.
So I’m basically trying to balance doctrinal concerns, and sympathy for authors and the wounded, over here. Which is a statement I could not have written five years ago.
Also I have a bit of a personal beef with some of the anti-Emergent blogs that went after this stuff in the neighborhood of 2007/08. Some of them (not the Illuminati-Freemason-New World Order conspiracy people) had some good points about some figures in the movement. But they directed their readers straight into the arms of the Neo-Calvinist/YRR folks, who frankly have just as many problems in the opposite direction. So the way I see it now, one shouldn’t trust either extreme Emergent or extreme Neo-Calvinist to get stuff right.
Sorry for the length of that ramble.
Hester,
Thanks for chiming in. You make some excellent points which I hope will encourage a discussion about Christian fiction. There does appear to be a double standard.
Hmm…this has been as tough one for me. I was given The Shack as a gift in 2008 as a must read to help with my healing and recovering from bad religion and abuse.
I liked the way God (all of him) was portrayed. But in the end, the book only added to the pain and this discussion has resurrected that pain, much to my chagrin.
The character I most related to was the little girl and the way forgiveness was handled and the way finding the little girl played out seemed to reinforce the doctrines that had been so damaging….I was so hurt and angry at the end of the book, I wanted to throw it across the room.
I watched the first clip of Mr. Young, and his describing the book really brought all that emotion right back. 🙁
So I think I will bow out of this for a while. For me, these waters feel unsafe.
I am reading The Shack now for the first time. Amazing. I purposely did not read it when it came out because I just had this serious aversion to all the ridiculous discussions about it and did not think I could read it objectively at all. I wanted some distance and then I forgot about it.
But after hearing Paul Young speak several times over the last few years I decided to download it to my kindle. He hits a chord that is missing in Christendom and it is not just about the “love” of God but about US as his children that is so important. The same chord that NT Wright hits in his own academic way about being the kingdom of God right here and now.
I can see why the Shack resonated with so many people. I think some of the more high brow lit types miss the fact that because it is NOT literature made it even more appealing to so many. Paul Young is NOT Flannery O’Connor. And that is ok.
Listen, his message to people who live a great sadness is so moving. I highly recommend listening to his talks. There is a clarity that is missing in so many “sermons”. In fact, I can barely listen to sermons anymore. I am just sermoned out, I think.
Jeannette,
I’m sorry for your pain and for causing you additional distress. I have already listened to Paul Young’s message that we will be featuring in EChurch this weekend, and his testimony is painful to hear because he was also abused as a child. He attempted to take that personal suffering and turn it for good.
Please know that I will be keeping you in my prayers. Take care.
Jeanette, I am so sorry about it being triggering for you. None of us has the right to decide what is healing or not for others who have been so horribly abused.
I liked the Shack because I, as the author did, needed to over correct my faulty gender view of God before I could get close to God.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Jeannette, I can understand where you’re coming from. I have dealt with (and am still dealing with) sexual abuse perpetrated by my “Christian” father. I went through periods of time when I wanted to rip up the bible and throw it across the room. I was told by well-meaning people that I had to forgive my father. I ranted and raved at God for allowing the abuse to happen. But I stumbled and struggled my way through recover and healing. And it’s a long winding road with ups and downs and steps forward and backwards. For me what helped the most was just being honest with God about my feelings. I often yelled at God about the unfairness of it all, about the intense pain, about my inability to trust, even God. I gave all my feelings of anger and bitterness and hatred to God because I didn’t know what to do with them. I couldn’t use the word “forgive” much less actually do any forgiving. Little by little God has healed the pain and trauma and has done the forgiving for me. Of course I still struggle with trust, but I’ve come such a long way. My prayers are with you as you continue on this journey.
Thanks Hester and Jeanette for your comments.
On the one hand, having heard of the contents of The Shack, especially from a very enthusiastic lady, I have to raise my hand and say that I probably won’t read it, not because I am hearkening to the advice of certain Calvinistas, but simply because (a) it doesn’t appeal to me and (b) I think one or two aspects of it might be offputting to me.
On the other hand, having read the rebuttal by one of the author’s associates to some of the criticisms leveled, I am more sympathetic, especially if some of the critics are upset that it appears to go against their hierarchical view of the Trinity. As I think the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is theologically rather dubious and does not appear to have been taught before in the Church, I think for upholders of this view to be criticising the supposed view of the Trinity being expressed in The Shack is a bit rich!
@ Jeannette Altes: Please know that I pray for you.
Kolya wrote:
Brilliant comment!
@ Deb: Now, we shall be branded heretics for allowing The Shack’s author to give a sermon on EChurch. By the time some of these guys get finished, the only thing we will be allowed to read is “their” books which of course are filled totally with grace and truth.
This book was a work of fiction which reflects the painful journey of the author. I read the book and liked it in spite of the doctrinal police hysteria. While i read it, i never once believed that the author was saying that such appearances are the Trinity. It was his vision as he dealt with pain.
I have news for the theological police. Interview every church member in America and you will find 90%+ of them have a hard time envisioning the Trinity and do not do so in a “correct” manner. Perhaps CS Lewis’ statement applies here “No one ever went to hell for imaging that God has a long white beard.”
However, there are some in this crowd who will say they will since some of them believe that they hold the keys to the declaration of salvation.
Amy,
Thanks for reaching out to Jeannette (from far away ;-)) in such a thoughtful way.
Dee,
Maybe you could discuss your thoughts on the mystery of the Trinity in a post. While we don’t profess to have all the answers, we sure do have lots of questions.
Deb
I am just a woman. What could i know of the Trinity. Isn’t it all a masculine concept, nothing for our pretty little heads?
I wonder if Mark Driscoll has a problem with how God the Father is depicted in the book of Genesis.
I never finished The Shack, having picked it up at my mother’s house (where I could never focus on anything). But I feel sad for Jeannette so I googled this on a blog that went chapter-by-chapter:
“The conversation turns towards Mack daughter, Missy, and he asks if she had the right to be protected. Sarayu says, “No Mack. A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected.” This floors Mack. She continues, “Rights are where survivors go, so they don’t have to work out relationships…” that “Jesus didn’t hold on to any rights; he willingly became a servant and lives out of his relationship with Papa. He gave up everything, so that by his dependent life he opened a door that would allow you to live free enough to give up your rights.”” https://theshackreview.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/chapter-9—a-long-time-ago-in-a-garden-far-far-away/
Is this accurate? If so, it’s not surprising that Jeannette finds it unacceptably painful.
Dee & Deb,
Maybe you guys* should do a post on Trinitarian concepts and beliefs just to clear the air and give folks a chance to make up their own minds with regard to the various views.
note* ‘guys’ in contemporary parlance now means people in general with little regard for gender.
@ Patrice:
Can’t even begin to wrap my mind around that excerpt. Disturbing. I find it painful, and I wasn’t abused.
Patrice
He was seriously abused as a child, and this book is how he worked that out. This is one guy who gets abuse from a personal experience. There are different ways that people cope with pain and the role of faith in that pain. One person’s solution does not work for everyone.
@ Kolya & Deb:
“As I think the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is theologically rather dubious and does not appear to have been taught before in the Church, I think for upholders of this view to be criticising the supposed view of the Trinity being expressed in The Shack is a bit rich!”
Good, I wasn’t the only one who thought of that!
@ Dee:
“Now, we shall be branded heretics for allowing The Shack’s author to give a sermon on EChurch.”
Most definitely. Careful or before you know it, you’ll be fulfilling Jimmy’s “official” exit prediction that your egalitarianism will put you on the slippery slope to hell. ; )
Dee,
I’m listening to Paul Young’s message for the second ttime. He explains (starting at the 14 minute mark) that he was five years old when the sexual abuse began. It’s a pretty incredible story. The next year he went to boarding school and was molested there by an older boy. He tears up quite a bit in this message.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Mark Driscoll’s Indian name is
“Boy Who Not Know Allegory”
Argo wrote:
Hilarious Argo! Here’s a Native American aphorism concerning daylight savings time:
“…Only a white man would cut a foot off his blanket, sew it onto the other end, and then claim he has a longer blanket…”
Muff Potter wrote:
Love.
@ Hester: Ah Jimmy. I hope he is doing OK during my slide.
dee wrote:
I’ll bet that’s a big reason why the book feels so effective/evocative/real to people. Which is tres cool.
But I am curious how that theme, IF it is in there (do you know if it is?) helped him deal with the abuse. I’m not saying it couldn’t, but just that I don’t know how it would work and I’m interested in the ways people resolve themselves to what happened.
If you think it better not to talk about, that’s fine, too.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice, I had a problem with the exact same quote from the book you mentioned earlier. See, I think children do have a right to be protected in the sense we are discussing….by parents and those in care for them. But Young did not have that protection from his parents. Perhaps that quote is how he works it out concerning blame? I get the feeling his book was more about his relationship with the Triune God.
I am not done with the book so perhaps I will have more later? I cannot seem to find quiet time to finish it last few days.
But my sense reading around the blogosphere when it came out was that most folks were resonating with his metaphorical view of the love/submission relationship within the Trinity. I don’t know if anyone else remembers but ESS was being promoted at the time from many quarters esp Reformed. The whole ESS thing (which comes in other varities with different names) really really concerns me. And that is one reason, I think, so many in academic cirlces were calling him a heretic. More so than metaphorically depicting a woman as Papa cos there are quite a few metaphorical depictions in scripture including rock, Hen, Fortress, even though scripture does not have them communicating.
Argo wrote:
Ha! I don’t understand his hatred of allegory. Doesn’t Genesis describe Adam and Eve hearing the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day? I mention this not because I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis but because I presume MD does when it comes to the creation account. So what does he do about its depiction of God in the Garden of Eden?
I do understand the defense of an orthodox view of God, but MD’s (seemingly) absolute certainty that he fully understands the nature of God bewilders me. I can’t help but think of the voice out of the whirlwind (another literary depiction of God) in the book of Job:
“Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.”
The Calvinistas have a very specific way of doing theology – one that is heavily informed by a Western, linear, analytic approach to knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Any attempt to discuss or explore theology that diverges from their preferred methodology is quickly and aggressively labelled as heretical. The result is that you have the creation and idolization of a very specific type of theologian: the Pipers and Carsons and others like them. In many seminaries you will find little Piperites and Carsonites, trying to memorize Calvin’s Institute’s and every Greek declension pattern in existence, so they can get their own church and write their own books and make sure that their congregation has the correct data clearly communicated them in a linear, systematic fashion.
One main problem with this, in my view, is that they don’t take into account the fact that the people and events depicted in the Bible have an ancient Near Eastern, semitic worldview. In other words, non-linear, flexible, question-oriented, allowing for ambiguity, etc.
So, it seems to me that Driscoll’s argument against The Shack (i.e. “it doesn’t teach doctrine explicitly, systematically, or clearly”) could just as equally be leveled against much of Jesus’ teaching (1/3 of Jesus’ words in Scripture are in the form of parables). Jesus’ stories were not explicit, systematic explanations of doctrine. Rather, they were subversive stories that were intentionally ambiguous – a point proven by the fact that most of his audience had no idea what he was trying to communicate. Biblical theology (that is, the theological methodology we see in Scripture) is tough and challenging and doesn’t allow for easy organization or systemization. In my view, although The Shack is obviously not inspired Scripture, it is faithful to the basic theological methodology that we see in Scripture. Much more so than Driscoll’s nice, neat presentation of “Doctrine.”
I never read the Shack. Like Anon 1, i thought all of the talk about it was kind of silly.
Also, I am glad to say that our church did not have sermons or discussions about the Shack. We did not have any about the DaVinci Code either. Or Y2K etc. etc.
Some in the congregation read the Shack. I have talked to people who hate it. I have talked to people who love it.
I am glad that LifeWay sold the Shack. In my opinion, that was the right call.
lilyrosemary wrote:
Perhaps he does not hate allegory as much as he hated how it was used which was not very “masculine” or the millions of copies it sold compared to his books?
Mark has an ego the size of Texas, is a bully and exhibits NPD tendancies.
@ Anonymous:I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the hoopla is all about the hierarchical view of the trinity via ESS as Kolya said earlier. I also think that certain groups are bent on trying to paint him as Rob Bell which he is not by any stretch of the imagination.
@ Anon 1:
Thanks, Anon 1. Would you tell me how it appears to you after you’ve finished the book?
Yesterday aft, I did a bunch o’ online reading surrounding The Shack. I found no mention of this harsh idea that a child is protected when loved but has no right to protection outside of it. Which is why I was surprised to find it this morn. Hmmm
There’s a related idea that I heard from a friend, who said that Christians are God’s hands in this world and their love-in-action is THE way that God is brought to other humans. If this is so, it ‘s very hard on those outside the Church, in much the same way as it is very hard for that child who is not loved by his/her parents.
I’ve just finished listening to Paul’s e-church’s talk. What a fine story-teller he is! He’d be great to sit around a fire with on evenings. Christians do not understand about art. We need art education/practice!!
Paul seems to be still in healing process. Of course! Perhaps that’s why there’s that weird bit in the book.
What is ESS?
@ Patrice: ESS = eternal subordination of the Son.
I cannot understand how this can be viewed as “Christian” belief, but…
Mr.H wrote:
Comparing ancient Near East calligraphy to ours makes your point as clear as can be.
“…every Greek declension pattern in existence…” 🙂
Thanks, numo.
What’s the point of it, do you know? I mean, why would someone bother to “discover” such a doctrine? I find it goofy, as if it were made up by an authoritarian-obsessed theologian who couldn’t sleep during a winter of nights.
Patrice wrote:
I honestly have to say, though I’m sorry to say it, that such a doctrine was discovered for the sheer point of being able to say that women will be eternally ‘submitted’ to men, & that that is the permanent Godly way of things, that we should be striving to achieve now. Seriously, it’s about the ‘Complementarians’ & ‘Patriarchs’ being able to say to women that submission in relationship is their natural place in the universe & just follows the Trinity. Cracks me up becasue of course ultimately men are also deemed to be ‘in Christ’ biblically, & thus submitted to the Father, not just the women…just wacky ridiculous speculation designed to uphold sinful human desires.
Muff Potter wrote:
Hah, that is exactly how I experience it. Don’t like it one bit.
Patrice,
I’m glad you enjoyed Paul Young’s message. With regard to ESS, let me share a few links to get you started:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/09/growing-semi-arianism-in-sbc-and.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-the-son-eternally-submissive-to-the-father/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/03/21/memo-to-mars-hill-the-suppression-of-church-women-is-not-the-cure-for-the-feminization-of-church-men/
These get me riled up!
http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1789-Tampering-with-the-Trinity.htm
http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-the-historic-doctrine-of-the-church/
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-3/JETS_37-3_351-364_Dahms.pdf
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There was so much pushback that the ESS crowd appears to have taken a sabbatical (or maybe they just went underground for a while).
Mr.H wrote:
These are some excellent points, especially your comparison with Jesus’s parables. Jesus taught in such a way that we arrive at truth intuitively rather than logically. There is certainly nothing wrong with logic, but … we’ve got to take Jesus as he is. It seems as though some theologians (and megachurch pastors) speak very broadly about “Christian stuff,” proof texting and coming up with unshakeable opinions about all kinds of things, without ever directly addressing the teachings of Christ.
In the search for truth, ambiguity is not the enemy, and absolute, unquestioning certainty is not the goal. Surely it’s possible to be “absolutely sure” of something false. Questioning is key because we must constantly question our own motives (to quote Richard Feynman: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool”).
Beakerj—I can hardly believe it but you are right!!!!
Thanks Deb—I will have a cackling good time this evening reading your offerings.
First enunciated by G. Knight III in his highly influential 1977 book, “New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker, 1977).” To which Peters (1993) proposes the correct belief as “antisubordinationist trinitarianism” roflmao
For the first thousand years or so of heaven, I am going to run around (in full human costume!), cracking jokes with Jesus, and happily hearing abject apologies. Wanna come with?
When we’ve heard them all, I will personally conduct the penitents in a new heavenly “Hallelujah” chorus with the newly perfected words, “I’m an idjit”. The rest of us will sip champagne while dancing through the galaxy. It’ll be the best evah!
Honestly!
Here is a link to a Q and A about the theology in The Shack book that really helped to clarify some things for me:
http://www.ivpress.com/title/disc/32-supplement.pdf
The next Big Box post is up!
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/the-wise-womans-guide-to-blessing-her-husbands-vision-the-pink-half-tbb/
Elvera wrote:
Thanks so much for providing this link! I hope those who are struggling with The Shack will take a look at it.
@ Hester:
I am so glad you are writing these posts! I look forward to reading your latest installment. 🙂
@ Muff Potter:
Muff P.,
I love it! Never thought of it that way…really funny.
@ Mr.H:
Mr. H.,
Brilliant post. Really. Highlighting Jesus’s heavy use of the parable was dead on!
Can’t you just hear Off-the-Mark Driscoll now? “God isn’t an earthly king! That’s heresy, Jesus! God doesn’t own a vineyard. He can’t drink wine, because only HUMANS drink wine! Heretic! He’s not human! JESUS is the human, and if He drinks wine it’s in DEFERENCE to what God drinks, which is NOTHING! And if He owned a vineyard, He wouldn’t own A vineyard, He would own them ALL. But He doesn’t own vineyards because His business is cattle anyway. Remember? All the cattle on a thousand hills! Heretic! Apostate! Where is there mentioned any vineyard amongst the cattle on those hills!”
At some point these guys just so need to crawl out of their own behinds.
Ooops…did I cross the line with that last part, Dee?
Thanks for all the links for Patrice on ESS. It got to be so big that Cheryl Schatz did a video series on it and the Trinity to refute the teaching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLe-qF2nptA&feature=share&list=UUcJwOqn007QhX0STtEIguvQ
It was real big at SBTS a few years back and probably still is taught except there was so much pushback on it they are probably not promoting as much as they did in churches. Just indoctrinating the young men in it. If you understand ESS you understand why the Shack was hated so much by them. They use a faulty interpretation of Phil 2, 1 Corin 11 and others to try and back it up. They NEED hierarchy within the Trinity for their interpretations of a lot of verses they use for authority over people esp women. Kevin Giles an Anglican in Australia wrote 2 books refuting it that were excellent.
Remember they are teaching “eternal” subordination eternity past and future. Not just incarnation. I would always whip out John 5:18 on them:
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Typical Reformation thinking leaving out the Hebrew thinking….. A “son” representing a father in any transaction was considered the same as dealing with the father himself. That is why that parable of the tenents was so significant to the hearers.
It rears its ugly head in different forms and names.
Anon1,
Thanks for those links. I haven’t seen them before and look forward to watching them.
Remember the debate at TEDS a few years ago between Bruce Ware/Wayne Grudem and Kevin Giles and another guy (can’t remember who)? It seems like the ESS crowd went silent after that. I have no doubt that the young bucks are being indoctrinated at Boyce and SBTS.
Patrice, If they cannot prove hierarchy BEFORE the fall, they know their pet doctrine they have built their lives and careers on are doomed. So, tamper with the Trinity to make it so. Too many excellent scholars have take their hierarchy of Adam–>Eve before the fall and torn it to shreds with facts. And with the internet it is getting easier for the pew sitter to do their own research on Hebrew, etc.
ESS has been around longer in other forms, though. It has had a resurgence in the last 20 years as ESS. You should hear Bruce Ware and Denny Burk preach on it. Amazing what they do with the Trinity. Did you know most cults always tamper with the Trinity. That is a sure sign. Cheryl Schatz shows how close they are to Jehovah Witnesses!
Deb, I forgot about that! You are right they did go a bit silent and that usually tells me folks on their side started questioning. I read both of Giles books and I will tell you what floored me and I will never trust SBTS again after reading it:
Giles showed how Ware and some others totally edited Athanasius’ writings by using edited quotes to make them appear to affirm ESS in Ware’s book! Where are the fact checkers?. These are “scholars” at SBTS doing this? I am sorry but that should be an offense so bad they are fired.
Thanks for contributing to my re-education, Deb, Dee, Anon 1, et al.
Re articles between Letham and Giles on the CRI/equip site. Letham vehemently renounces words that overlap the meaning of words that he supports. Thus he can say that Giles is misrepresenting his views simply because his own precise terminology isn’t used. His priority is the letter of the law over the spirit of the law because he can then continue to support an unpalatable position out-of-sight.
In politics, there are common tactics with many variations—particularly useful for writing fudgy laws/acts, and producing “propaganda”. Hugely dishonest. And pointless for theology–turning religious scholarship into a political tool is shameful.
I notice similar tactics by Challies and (in last week’s online catch-up reading hah) by Fred Butler towards Julie Anne. Why resort to manipulation and deceit? How foolish they look!
It is ridiculous to try to keep out the “secular” and “worldly” in order to maintain the holy and pure. Because when they are focused on separating themselves from “out there” and parsing/organizing their tight little constructs, evil grows wild behind their eyes and in their hearts, along that line of evil running through everyman. “And he huffed and he puffed and he blew their house in.”
Will re-commence linky goodnesses (and vid) tomorrow.
What bothers me most about Paul Young and The Shack is the lawsuits Paul was involved with. From what I can figure, he initiated a suit against Wayne Jacobsen, and counter suits ensued. It seems that, though settled out of court, there is no reconciliation of those involved. I have listened to Wayne and others on The God Journey. His messages are full of love, grace and Christ. As TWW seeks to stand in the truth, perhaps questions could be asked of Paul around these issues. It’s hard to receive a message from someone who has a broken relationship with brothers in Christ. I have no idea exactly what happened, and who was at fault, but how can men who both claim to love Christ and His grace not be reconciled? Perhaps the out of court settlement doesn’t allow for the true facts to come out? Or have I missed something in all this?
@ Beakerj: Yep!
they even claim that the Nicene Creed says ESS is real. I ask you!!!
numo wrote:
Why do these guys need the submission of women so much? Whhhhyyyyyys
And Patrice I’m up for some running about cackling now…. let’s form a virtual gang called ‘ The Usurpresses’ and do a lot of laughing at stuff. I’m sure Numes is in & no doubt elastigirl & Anon1…
BeakerJ wrote:
Commentary on one of the blogs I read yesterday (don’t remember where) asked that question, and added that ESSers surely wouldn’t go through all that merely for submission of women. The longer goals of the Reconstructionists (who require an hierarchical god) were suggested. That sounds a little foily but it’s viable without insisting on conspiracy. ESSers’ attitudes might be part of the broader cultural impulse towards tighter authoritarian structures.
Over the last years, in the political/economic blogs I read, similar questions have been asked regarding gov’t and its capture/collusion by/with the international corporation/banking cartels. The analysis goes beyond the right/left paradigm. Ever with us are those greedy for power and control who, when allowed sway, collect upwards into ever-smaller groups. History buffs suggest that public silence and acquiescence to power-hungry leadership often occur when there’s a rise of economic/social/political insecurity after a period of prosperity.
The US church feels superior about its separation from the world. But pride makes one blind and vulnerable towards that which one holds in contempt. I think these masculinists are both ignorant and arrogant, a deadly combination. Thus the church has no defense against the broader cultural zeitgeist that opposes democracy and deepens hierarchy.
All that to say, yes, please, let’s cackle across the intertubes. I’d love to be part of a virtual gang! It’s a great idea. How would we go about it?
@ Maggie:
I have read about the lawsuit, and it did bother me. I am glad they settled out of court.
http://stevelaube.com/the-shack-gets-sued/
@ Maggie:
“I have no idea exactly what happened, and who was at fault….Or have I missed something in all this?”
You missed that it is sad when friends go to court against each other but that does not change the content of the book. You also missed that judgment cannot be brought when one has little idea of what happened.
Fights are always awful so I am glad not to be privy to this one. It is the responsibility of these men and God, who have all the facts.
And the moral of the story is that one should have a solid and clear contract when venturing into business with anyone.
@ Maggie: We will take a look at the suit and see what we can find out. It is important to note that a number of well known Christian leaders and ministries have been involved in lawsuits: Mac Brunson, RC Sproul, Ken Ham and AIG, VeggieTales,etc. I also know of a couple of quiet lawsuits involving some well known, very current leaders as well.
There have been a number of lawsuits involving Christian investment firms, etc.
Deserved or not, for all the talk of Matthew 18, when money or reputation (of which money is a factor) is involved, people turn to the law. That is why we take it seriously when Christians use the word “slander” since it is a legal term and we believe it should be used judiciously.
@ BeakerJ:In any movement, it is imperative to have a scapegoat in order to blame the “need” for tighter control. Women serve that role quite well-they have abandoned their home and have achieved parity in professions such as medicine.
They used to say that women could not stand the stress of the jobs of men/ Well, they do so. The leaders have a problem. The women can do almost everything (with the exception of going to head to head with men in sports) that men can do. So, they have to twist themselves into a pretzel to figure out how to limit women within the church environment.
They are left with a difficult dilemma. At this point a woman could be President but she would not be allowed to read Scriptures out loud from the pulpit. I would say that they are the ones with the problem and I shall watch with great interest to see how they resolve this. It should be amusing.
Anon 1 at 10:01 and 10:07 p.m. and 10:13 p.m.
I wish I knew who you were. You obviously know what you are talking about, but your anonymity makes me think you are either employed by an agency involved, well-known among the men you mention, or the spouse of someone in the first two categories.
Well stated.
Patrice wrote:
Sorry Patrice, But I thought my post was non judgemental and objective, with no blame put on anyone.
I made no comment on my view of The Shack. I wanted to keep that a separate issue from raising the lawsuits, which after all, Is a common theme here.
You have jumped to a conclusion about my view of The Shack that is quite wrong.
I am sorry if I inferred that.
I have lived in the real world enough to know lawsuits happen. I was not trying to convey I was ‘shocked’ by a lawsuit happening. I know enough about your litigious society in the USa to know that often counter suits are necessary and the legal process is convoluted.
I thought this was a safe place to ask questions.
Patrice wrote:
And it should floor Mack! Wow. That is horrible, completely unhealthy. Protection from abuse is a basic human right. The rest of the quote is even more disturbing. Jesus gave up his rights and willingly became a servant? Do I even need to go on about what this implies and how very twisted and dangerous a message it is?
Re the debate on ESS, while I am not necessarily going to defend the Shack (nor am I in a position to do so, not having read it), I have been thinking about this for a while and last night was reading the Athanasian Creed, which is generally accepted as orthodox by the historic Christian denominations. You can find it on Wikipedia.
My attention was drawn to the following clauses (following extract courtesy of Wikipedia):
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
To me that seems to contradict ESS.
@ Kolya: Compadre! I’ve quoted that here a few times in the past. 🙂
@ Maggie:
I’m glad you made no judgment, Maggie.
I have some questions regarding the Shack and didn’t want the resurrection of old controversies to get in the way of that content. But since you intended no inference, it’s all good.
@ Oasis:
Oasis, I’m thinking that perhaps that section is a bit of unprocessed trauma from Paul’s past. It is as if, smack in the middle of a healing story, an ancient destructive conversation got caught in amber. I see nothing of this attitude in Paul’s talk—there I see only a man who’s been hugely traumatized and is still wandering his way towards complete healing. I’m all for mercy towards him.
We notice the nasty bit because it has too familiar a flavor. I am supposing this is what triggered Jeannette away. It’s disconcerting that this flaw hasn’t been mentioned by anyone (that I’ve read) in all the controversy surrounding this book.
At the time he wrote his story, it must have been harming Paul, somewhere inside of him. I dearly hope it is no longer there for him.
@ Kolya:The ESS brigade would contend that they are all equal and that “subordinate” can be equal. I think they have been reading Animal Farm if you ask me.
Oasis wrote:
I guess I looked at this differently. It seems to me that he could mean that love goes much further than a “right.”
Let’s say your community has a guard until 12 midnight. After 12 midnight, he goes off duty. At that point, you cannot demand a right to be protected because he is off the clock. Someone who loves you doesn’t clock out but is there for you 24/7, not because you have a right to his presence but because he loves you and wants to protect you far greater than a guard who has set hours.
Patrice wrote:
Funny you’d say that. It reminded me of the time on the silver screen when Anthony Hopkins asked Jodie Foster if the lambs had stopped screaming.
dee wrote:
This is how I received it too. When reading the whole book, I think this is even more emphasized. As Paul as explained, Missy is the depiction of Paul’s own innocence. Paul is Missy(the innocent boy part of him) and he is Mack.
@ Debbie Kaufman:Hey friend, how are you? Thanks for the input.
I was heading to bed when I decided to add this. Rights, defined by laws, are what a society imposes on its populace because people fail in the area of love. If we truly loved one another, those rights would not need to be defined and backed up by laws and punishments because our love would make it unnecessary.
If we all loved, there would be no pedophilia, no bombs at public gatherings, no thieves violating our property, no one driving drunk and no Bernie Madoffs. Instead, we must settle for laws to cover what we cannot do by our love. One day, in heave we will experience a society ruled by love rather than by coercion.
Really late to this discussion. I really haven’t had any interest in this book and know very little about it. Regarding Driscoll’s video, I think the only credible argument he has is the depection of modalism, which I agree contradicts the scripture and the historical creeds (if the book says what he says it does). However, modalism is a trap many Christians fall into, which doesn’t make it OK, but it does make it understandable.
I really struggle with what to do about modalism, because while I agree it is an error, I have difficulty seeing the practice issues that it leads to. Or to say it another way, what sinful behavior results from modalism? I just don’t know, but I still don’t buy Phillips, Craig, and Dean music because they are modalists.
@ Patrice
Yes, that quote concerns me so much for anyone who may be triggered, but just as much for Paul! I absolutely hate to think of how he might still be suffering inside from such concepts.
I am with you; much mercy for Paul. The dam in my own life only broke sometime last year. I’m no stranger to destructive thinking. I just hope, above all else, that Paul understands how much he is loved, and how much he did deserve to be protected, and should have been.
@ dee:
I understand what you’re saying and I sure hope that’s what he meant. And I admit that I’ve never read the book. But what confuses me is, how could he have meant it that way when, speaking of rights, there is this:
The context and timing scares me.
@ Wade Burleson:
Well Wade, We paid a very high price for daring to disagree with the “Great men of God” so we have done our time already and it was a very expensive lesson so we know how they operate to wipe dissenters off the face of the earth.
We have decided to be faceless nobodies.
One of the problems we found (out of many) were that followers made their decisions about “truth” or what to believe based upon the person, title, position and clout of their heros both dead and alive, ironically.
That is what following humans tends to do because we invest ourselves in them for what to believe. And that brings death to truth and kills our relationship with our Creator.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff, Is the Trinity, in your opinion, “One True God”?
@ dee: I don’t see how we could ever “truly love one another” enough to make rights – and laws – unnecessary. (Though I do not think that’s what you’re saying, Dee… am just musing out loud.)
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes
Regarding “rights”- I haven’t read this book, so I don’t know where the author is coming fro;, however it’s a question I’ve struggled with before when dealing with some teachings of Nouthetic counsling. Specifically Nouthetic counsling says we do not have the “right” to be loved or have our basic needs met.
When I first encountered that, I really thought it was strange language, just because I never thought of having those things as “rights”. Having a “right” sounds a lt like an attitude of entitlement, and I’ve never thought that I was “entitled” to good things. In fact, I know that I am not, because sometimes there are people who don’t get those things- are they right to shake a fist at God and demand that he give them what they are entitled to?
But see, this is where I think the perspective is all wrong- we don’t get good things from God because we have rights- we get them because we are loved. And when we don’t get them it isn’t because God has failed to give us our due, but because this world is marred by sin. But God STILL desires us to be loved, even when we are not (by anyone except him, of course).
To make this clearer, I think about my son. He has an expectation from me that I will love him, protect him, give him hugs, and be a father to him. Are these his “rights” as my son? I wouldn’t say it that way- these are certainly things he should desire, and I’m glad he does. But none of this displays a sense of entitlement- he has these expectations because he trusts my love for him. Am I always able to deliever in these expectations? No, but he can trust that I always want to.
But I don’t expect him to ever tell me- “Daddy, you must hug me- it is my right”. He doesn’t have to appeal to his “rights” because love goes deeper than rights, and it would hurt me if he ever did. He can say “Daddy, hug me because you love me” and he’ll be right every time, even if it’s at a time that I can’t deliever (for example, we are in the car and he is strapped into his car seat).
I may be way off base without having read the book, but this is something I’ve worked out in my own mind before.
Jeff S wrote:
They are???
anonymous wrote:
Oneness Penacostals to be precise, though I think at least their management tries to downplay it. I would link to articles that discuss this, but almost all of them take a more hostile tone than I would on this issue.
@ numo:Not in this life. I have hope for the life to come. In the meantime, given what I see going on in the faith today, love cannot be stressed enough.
@ dee:
I’ll bet you are correct. Paul was saying that every child is loved (even if only by God) and therefore protection is always there Like in 1 Cor 13, where it states that love protects all things.
But I still think his ideas go awry here. I remember an old theme among some Christians that “rights” are secular constructs, similar to the current theme regarding “equal”. Is that still around? If so, maybe Paul is working from there.
I think people deserve to be treated with love. From what I remember, some Christians vehemently disagreed, saying that the only thing we “deserve” or have “right to” is eternal death. They also thought the “rights” meme minimized the astonishing grace of God.
But God thought His/Her creation was well worth saving. Christ went through outrageous contortions to break the power of sin so that we could be (eventually) restored to ourselves. From that context, we do indeed deserve to be treated lovingly by others, and every time we aren’t, I think that both God’s creative genius and victorious sacrifice are denied.
I’m not saying anything new or that you disagree. I blahblahblah because when I hear even a hint of theological cruelty, I have an irresistible urge to push back. Like Pavlov’s dog, I drool. lol
@ Oasis:Jesus was absolutely innocent of the charges against Him. Not only that, he had the right to call His angels to defend Him and to destroy those who persecuted Him. While he was on the Cross he was mocked for his apparent lack of power. Instead He willing hung on the Cross, enduring the shame, in spite of His ability to escape and to mete out punishment to those who persecuted Him.
Michael Card sings “Why did the nail His feet and hands? His love would have held Him there.
Countless women and men have given up their lives as martyrs because the faith was more important than their lives. Many could have escaped Nero’s torture by simply saying “Nero is God.” They willing exchanged their lives here for lives in the future.
Let’s look at the Civil Rights struggle. There were some Christians who gave up their “rights” to a comfortable, quiet life and marched for the equality of African Americans. As a society we were forced to integrate via a law because mankind turned their backs on love for one another and set up segregation. If we had truly loved one another, such a march would not have been needed. We would have loved one another as children of God.
Jesus does not expect the abused to give up their rights. In fact, He wants it to go far deeper. he wants us to deeply love the abused, far beyond what society offers.
@ anonymous:In my opinion, most people in most churches exhibit some form of modalism in their approach to the Trinity. My own thinking evolved over years on this subject and if truth be told, I still have a hard time visualizing the Trinity.
The reason for that is clear. We are finite beings existing in a 3 dimensional world. It is darn near impossible for us to understand something that we do not see in our world. The concept is in the Bible. We know there are 3 Whos (Father, Son and Spirit who are tied up in 1 What (God). Those outside the faith often believe that we have three Gods because it sounds that way.
So, I have read many, many takes on the Trinity and I can truthfully say that I still don’t get it. So, I stand on the historical teachings and am not a modalist. But, I have great empathy for those who are saying it the wrong way. It is confusing, terribly confusing. Maybe we will get it when we see Him face to face. But, then again maybe not- we will still be the created and not the infinitely knowledgeable Creator.
Patrice wrote:
I agree. I know that God deeply loves us, always has and always will. We are created in his image, we are called His children and He does not desire to see any of us eternally separated from Him. The Bozos who stress Gods wrath and disgust at us are missing the big picture which is His love.
(For those of you who are just tuning in, I am not a universalist).
Through our laws, we attempt to protect the innocent from abuse. It may protect them (often not) but it does not make a pedophile love. In this world, we have to deal with that which is far less than love in order to protect as best as we can. Someday we will live in that love, always.
@ dee:If we all loved there would be no need for male to female bullying as some christian leaders proclaim.
@ Joy Huff: Ditto.
@ dee:
I’m glad you addressed it the way you did. My former church is doctrinally Oneness Pentecostal. I joined it after being raised SBC. Their view of the Godhead was explained to me, but, honestly, I never really “got it” with the explanation of the Trinity in the SBC. Despite that, I contend that I was still able to grow in my relationship with the Lord in Pentecostalism. (I just have issues with the abusive, authoritarian leadership in my former church) There are many kind, loving, devoted Christians who identify as Oneness Pentecostals, and I would hate for them to simply be dismissed as a group over that doctrinal issue.
@ dee:
I think I basically agree with you regarding modalism. I am not a modalist and I want to be careful about supporting those who teach it, but that doesn’t mean I’m unsympathetic to those who believe it. A lot of people do without even realizing it.
One thing I would like to say- I have less difficulty than some in envisioning a “one in essence, three in person” construct because of my work in software development and specifically the concepts that make up object oriented programming. In OOP there is a difference between the “instance” of a thing and the “class” of a thing. In fact, classes can be completely distinct from one another and still apply to the same instance. Not all OOP languages would allow you to model something like the Trinity (as most modern languages require a hierarchical relationship between classes), but certainly the concept of separate identities for an object of a single essence is there, and some languages do allow distinct classes to be applied to an instance without a hierarchical nature.
Jeff S wrote:
Agreed on all points esp. “what sinful behavior results”? Which can be asked of any “heresy”.
To attempt the converse, I will answer 2 questions categorically. Q: How many human souls ever were/are/will be saved BECAUSE they understood the doctrine of the Trinity correctly? A: 0.
Q: How many ever DID understand the doctrine of the Trinity correctly? A: 1.
@ Jeff S:
So Jeff S, I love a debate on this topic. You wrote: “…we don’t get good things from God because we have rights- we get them because we are loved.” I think this creates needless tension. Love made us. Love declared us of immense value and came down to restore us. Without Love and love, we cannot comprehend a self, much less our worth and the rights attendant therein.
A person comes to God in rage/pain: “I didn’t deserve to be abused! I deserved to be loved!” God doesn’t say, “What are you talking about? You are entitled to nothing, but lucky for you, I love you anyway.” God says, “You are correct. I made you beautifully and then went through a lot of trouble to restore your world after the Fall. Now this same sin has wreaked havoc in you. Allow me to come along side of you for the long process of healing and restoration.” Those are the words of a father who loves the creature that came from his own body “made in his image”.
Your son is fully entitled to be loved by you and by doing so, you give him the value that God gives him. No, your son won’t say, “You must hug me, it is my right” because a child doesn’t know much about who he is or how things work—that’s why he needs that hug, to continue the process of showing him what nurtures and heals. You’ve openly loved him all his life, so he will go for that hug instinctively, trusting you to continue showing him who he is and what he needs. And most importantly, he’ll learn about a healthy relationship, which points to the character of his relationship with God.
For those whose parents don’t love, a hug may be artificial (done in front of others), a guilt response (I’m schmoozing the abuse I handed you earlier), a sexual gesture (sex is love even though you’re wrecked by it), etc. That is another form of teaching about who we are, what we do/don’t deserve, what we can/can’t expect, what relationships (even with God) do and how we should act and proceed in them.
I don’t think there is a tension between rights and love. Love contains rights, and rights, if honestly sought, will lead into love. Of course, like love, rights are sometimes dishonestly sought/used, but that negates neither.
I think nouthetic counseling is wicked for requiring, first thing up front, that damaged clients abjectly strip away the remaining tatters of their selves, in agreement with their abusers who told/showed them over and over, “You have no right to be loved or to have basic needs met”. They take the principles of salvation, which are specific and insular, and spread them like bitter frosting over every spiritual/emotional issue. It is ignorant, cruel and profoundly damaging, in my very strong opinion.
Patrice
I kinda of see what you are saying, but don’t know that I completely agree. The point where I diverge is that we can demand and deserve love till we turn blue in the face, but “love” only exists when it is given freely to someone else. So to say that we all “deserve” to be loved is a hard pill to swallow. I desire to love others and want God to help me do that and be that love to others, but I don’t in any way feel that I can demand it from anyone.
I also believe that I have the responsibility to remove myself from the presense of abuse, harm, and that which desires to destroy me. I don’t believe that I should suffer to the point of harm or death to make a point or in hope of bringing salvation to an evil person (as some Christian leaders and counselors might suggest). Jesus was the only sacrifice that can bring salvation. I can walk away from abuse and harm without denying Christ. In the world I Iive in, anyway, I am not asked to deny Christ, or die. People may think I’m a loon for believing in Him, but they won’t kill me for it. This wasn’t the case 2000 years ago or 1500 years ago. Sadly, in the past 500 years even “Christians” killed each other over what one believed or didn’t believe.
We see the same abuse today over what “God says” (as if any man knows all God has to say). People who claim to be Christians shouldn’t abuse or harm in the name of Christ, but they do. Thankfully, some governments (under God’s direction) have stopped much of this insanity.
I did not see Jesus abuse or harm in an effort to make himself known. He did walk away or leave places where harm might come his way . . . until the appointed time for his death, which BTW only Jesus and his Father knew. Goodness, Jesus even healed the servant of the high priest who was attacked by one of His own followers! What a lesson we could learn from that.
Hmmm . . . is power without force possible? I think many have the two confused.
Monday ramblings . . .
@ Jeff S.:
The way modalism was explained to me (and no idea if this is right or not) was that God can only “use” or “manifest” one “aspect” of his being at any given time. So while God is “acting” as God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit don’t exist. So the passage I learned disproved modalism (and it would disprove this version) was Jesus’ baptism as Jesus is being baptized, the Father is speaking, and the Holy Spirit descends like a dove – i.e., they are all present at the same time doing three distinct actions simultaneously.
Just for clarification, I’d also like to add that not all Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals, even though nobody actually said that.
Hester wrote:
You’re right. The Oneness Pentecostals are just a subset of Pentecostalism.
And I just want to say that I now consider myself a “none.” I’m not trying to defend any doctrines per se, either Modalism or Trinitarianism. Because of my experience, I wouldn’t encourage someone toward a Oneness Pentecostal church. Neither would I direct anyone to a Baptist church. But I know there are sincere, loving Christians in both of these denominations.
@ dee:
Hi Dee. I’m doing great. I agree with this. Well said.
Dave A A wrote:
Love it!
@ Hester: And Jesus on the Cross. Father, forgive them. Why do you forsake me.
@ Bridget:
Thanks for commenting back.
Yes, I agree that love can’t be demanded—that usually kills it. But still, love is required and deserved. It is that conundrum which makes life so hard sometimes, I think. Some of us wander around all our lives, needing love from other humans and not getting it. It damages us profoundly. And included in the damage is an inability to love ourselves properly. Which is partly why it’s sometimes so hard to remove ourselves from damaging relationships.
I do not understand why some Christians believe that people should stay in bad relationships. I did this myself and it was insanely destructive (literally). The only reason I can find for why some people insist on such a ridiculous notion is ignorance parading as knowledge. Proverbs-style foolishness.
“Jesus was the only sacrifice that can bring salvation.” Yes!! Like you, I also do not understand how people can correlate our suffering with that of Christ’s. And how we are “to do as he did”. Jesus was God/Man and he had a specific world-shaking purpose. I realize that people intend imitation to be a mark of respect/honor towards Christ, but more often than not, it ends up belittling that which was done once for all and is now complete. Plus, it sometimes makes impossible requests of us frail not-gods. Just more foolishness, Proverbs- style?
Yes, Jesus doesn’t harm or abuse us, not one little bit, to bring us into relationship with him. He comes with plain nurturing love, that one thing we most need/deserve and can’t ever demand.
In my opinion, power without force is the only kind worth believing in. That is Love.
Life is a strange place!
Bridget, Great comment!
Why do we love? because He first loved us.
My concerns are children who are not given any experience of real love and no way to seek what that is. We have to be on the lookout for them and do whatever we can to help them experience real love.
@ Patrice: Yes.
dee wrote:
Thank you, Dee. Love your comment and I am so glad you said this last part, because there is a world of difference between what Jesus did for us, and the concept of children, who are made in the image of God, having no right to protection from abuse. I thought it was understood, a common agreement among decent human beings in a civilized society that every human being deserves this right. This is a very dangerous and upsetting conversation for me and I really wish I’d taken Jeannette’s cue and not read further.
Almost wish I had the talent and the patience to create my own blog. I’m sure I’d only embarrass myself, but being anonymous, I hardly care. I can see my first post now: “What Not to Say to an Abuse Survivor, and Why.”
Patrice wrote:
In total agreement. Thank you for being a light in a dark place. Here is the message I (and others, since one thing I’ve learned in this life is that I am never the only one, with a certain opinion, quirk, experience, feeling etc.) hear:
You didn’t have the right to be protected from abuse in the first place.
Because you’re worthless.
Therefore, there is no reason why you shouldn’t have been abused.
You pretty much deserved it.
@ Patrice:
You and I aren’t so far apart on this, really. First off, I think Nouthetic counseling is awful for exactly the reasons you state.
Here is a blog post I wrote on this subject a few months back, but I think it’s probably mostly what I said up above- I’m linking it because it was a direct response to Nouthetic teaching that bothered me a lot:
http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/do-i-have-the-right-to-be-loved-by-jeff-s/
What I was trying to drive at, and maybe did not communicate clearly- is that the whole issue of “rights” is the wrong paradigm, and I think it’s the Nouthetic folks who drive the discussion that way. Maybe I’m wrong about the experience of others, but at my lowest moments the idea that I was asserting some “right” by expecting God, or even others, to love me simply wasn’t on my radar. And when Nouthetic folks talk about “rights”, I think they are distorting the gift of desire for good things and making it out to be sinful, when it is God who gave us that GOOD desire int he first place.
The way I look at it is that God designed me to be loved, and not just by him but by others. It’s not a legal contract or something so crass as a “right” that I appeal to- it is the created order of things. And when I am not loved, it is not a sense of entitlement that causes me pain, it is the the brokenness of this world not functioning the way it was designed.
My conclusion in the article I wrote is this:
“So if someone tells me I do not have the right to be loved, my answer will be ‘I am not asserting my rights, I am telling you what I know God wants for me and am pursuing those things. God wants me to be loved, safe, sheltered, and in a happy family. I may not get all of those things because this is a world marred by sin, but I know God desires them for me'”.
@ Jeff S.:
I think also people confuse a “right” with a sense of entitlement and arrogantly demanding what you think you are entitled to. Kind of like this kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T_obaO46Bo (another reason I can’t bring myself to watch Wifeswap)
Which is of course, as you said, not what “rights” were originally supposed to be.
Oasis wrote:
Yes, this is the message. It is identity destroying stuff. I’m pasting in a song that I wrote about the way I felt after being told it was my job to suffer for the Gospel. I hope the “he is in control” line isn’t a trigger- I know it sounds deterministic, but that’s not how I mean it. It’s more of a hopeful idea that God created me with a desire for good things, and it is he who is in control of things, not those who called me to suffer for their idea of what is right.
Who I Am
Does it matter who I am
When so many said it was OK-
That the way I was made to be
Should all be wiped away?
They said to removed the part of me
That wanted to live in peace
To overcome the hope I had
That one day I could be free
Could I allow all that I am be taken and destroyed
A sacrifice that brings no hope, just one more broken toy
But a still small voice calls out to me
And says I’m forever his
That he loves me and he knows me
And desires that I live
He wants me to be loved
He wants me to be whole
He created me to be who I am
And he is in control
When did we begin to believe
That all we are is sin?
When in Christ we have been restored
And our hearts have all been cleansed?
We were called out from darkness now to this new kind of life
No longer to walk in shadows we are dancers in the light
And that quiet voice still calls to me
And says I’m forever his
That he loves me and he knows me
And desires that I live
He wants me to be loved
He wants me to be whole
He created me to be who I am
And he is in control
Your voice is growing stronger and I hear you Lord
As you tell me that I always was your plan
So I lift up all that I have to you Lord
To thank you for who I am
Your powerful voice calls out to me
And says I’m forever yours
That you love me and you know me
And gave me life forevermore
You want me to be loved
You want me to be whole
You created me to be who I am
And you are in control
Hester wrote:
Excellent point- I agree the terms get messed up. The word “right” is definitely associated with entitlement and should not be.
That little boy- yikes.
@ Jeff S: I didn’t watch the video, but I do agree on people confusing fundamental human rights with entitlement, privilege (social, economic, whatever) and all kinds of other things that don’t have anything to do with the love and respect and chance to flourish that I believe is what the bible is speaking of when the image of God in humankind is referred to. (Well, that plus many other things!)
I think it’s also important to keep in mind that Jesus came at a time when there were absolute/near-absolute monarchs and representative government wasn’t on anyone’s agenda. I would not be surprised if that’s one of the things Paul’s referring to when he talks about Jesus emptying himself and not counting equality with God a thing to be grasped at in the incarnation.
@ Jeff S: I do think that Jesus upped the ante considerably re. actual human rights issues – in his time, and also for all time to come.
@ Jeff S:
I like your blog post very much (it’s hard to be clear in a comment section)!
So nouthetic counseling doesn’t only take away remaining ego scraps from the outset, but also insists throughout the therapy, that any expectation re human need is wrong. That’s appalling! I see now the breadth of distress it causes.
I was overly-generous to propose that they misapplied the principles of salvation. They have a foul form of dualism, one that adds “sacrifice” to an over-emphasis on sin. It is soft sadism. And yes, a HUGE bait and switch. What is wrong with these people?
It also makes sense of a nasty flavor I’ve been finding in many of the Christian blogs I’ve been catching up on—-a kind of triumphant harshness inside their authoritarianism. If I was into the spiritual battle scene, I’d say that evil has its way in much of Christian culture.
I see your point about “rights” but will continue to use it because it is the word at hand and used in broader culture (which is where I spend my time). If you come up with a better label, let me know–it would be useful.
@ Jeff S:
Mark Driscoll thinks he can legitimately tell his wife, “You must hug me, it is my right.” LOL It goes to your statement: “abuse is a mindset of entitlement”. Driscoll’s demands show he only knows what he wants and nothing more. He has no idea that when a relationship between adults is reduced to a bandying of rights, love and troth have gone missing. I feel sorry for his spouse.
How did you make your defense to leave your wife? I had no defense to make against my husband until I realized that I too had rights and that mine took precedence in regards to my personhood. From there, I realized that my husband’s repeated and insistent trampling of me first strained, then cracked, and finally broke the marriage covenant.
This is lovely:
“And that quiet voice still calls to me
And says I’m forever his
That he loves me and he knows me
And desires that I live
He wants me to be loved
He wants me to be whole
He created me to be who I am
And he is in control”
@ Jeff S:
I imagine that Paul Y went through nouthetic counseling and that’s why he wrote: “Rights are where survivors go, so they don’t have to work out relationships….” That form of therapy is possibly the reason for the nasty little interject in his book, and might also be why no one noticed, if it holds sway in the Christian community (does it?)
@ Patrice:
From a theological standpoint I’d read Instone-Brewer’s work and I believed that he made better sense of divorce and remarriage than anyone else. From a personal “this is what I need to do” standpoint, there was a day that I was lying on the bed while my son was napping, praying that he’d sleep just a little while longer because I didn’t have the emotional strength to care for his needs when he woke up. Lying there fearing his waking, I knew that I could not sacrifice my ability to be the parent he needed for the sake of the marriage. I had choices. My wife had choices. But my son depended on me and had no choices. So I made the choice that I would do what I needed to to make sure I was emotionally stable enough to meet his needs.
As soon as I made the decision to “plan for divorce” (I didn’t actually decide to divorce, just to live with the idea for a while) I started to gain strength and was able to pick myself up.
But as for my church and making the case to them, there was no making a case. I was fired as worship leader and called to repentence. They did not excommunicate me and they did not try to block my membership at my next church, but it was devistating to lose pretty much every friend I had. But in the end, it was worth it. God provided me with a new church, new friends, and a new ministry. And he grew in me an understanding of him and an empathy for the abused that I’d never had before. So as painful as it was, I believe (now) that God has blessed my decision and was always in my side.
So I don’t know about how I made my defense. In the end I did what I had to do and accepted the consequences. The most important thing to me was my son, and fortunately I was blessed with full custody.
@ Jeff S:
Ach! A situation like yours becomes interesting only after it’s long past. Gives meaning to the phrase: Thank God that’s over!
I’m glad you found a better church. I was not a church attender during my marriage break-up but church friends rejected me for my ex (who they all still visit, 12 years later) because they didn’t believe what I said about him but did believe what he said about me. (So all-around mature, sheesh!)
One good friend (an MD) had the gall to write a long letter explaining that the divorce as well as my depression were the direct result of not living in repentance before God. People can be accomplished and generally intelligent, yet say the darnedest things. That was the last straw for me—no more churchy types, I vowed. But still, I feel a wee bit jealous that you found a good church community.
I haven’t read Instone-Brewer. I finally decided that when one half of the marriage repeatedly trashes the covenant, “for rich or poor, through sickness and health” does not apply since my ex wasn’t sick but just an insistent a**. I gradually began to realize, too, that God wouldn’t want me to maintain a travesty just because there was a marriage-forever law—after all, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. Finally, I tricked out a rationalization: that “til death do us part” included death of a marriage when it’s as completely dead as ours, having flogged it for 17 years with no response. LOL
I hear you about your son—-through my later depressions, I stayed alive purely for my daugher. And how grateful I am that she’s been in my life!
I understand the jealously of not finding a church that understands. Having read many stories of survivors on ACFJ (http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com) I’ve learned just how blessed I was. I also know that my journey has been easier because I am a man, especially since I have full custody. That gives me a lot of immediate credibility, and I won’t deny it.
I went to the PCA because a) I am a Clavinist, and b) the PCA has a document declaring that physical abuse is an allowable reason for divorce. It should not be qualified as “physical”, but it’s still a step in the right direction. Sadly, not all PCA churches agree, but I felt like it was a good place to start.
I’ve heard some horror stories abiut PCA churches, but at least in the Atlanta area the few PCA churches I’ve run into have been really good. Not everything about my church is perfect, but my pastor lost his wife some years back (he’s remarried now) so he understands loss and pain. He has been quick to empathize with me and has welcomed my questions post sermon when I’ve challenged him. Just this week we had a discussion when he preached about not basing our image of ourselves on other people- he said we should base our image in how God sees us. My challenge: what if your view is that God hates you? His immediate answer: “That is true for a lot of victims of abuse- they have a lot of unlearning to do before they are going to be able to understand how God truly sees them”. I’m thankful that he sees that- if more pastors did, there would be a lot less “just snap out of it” discussion with pastors. I don’t know that he’s really tht experienced with abuse specifically, but he understand suffering.
Regarding the “man was not made for the Sabbath”, many times over in ACFJ we’ve said “man was not made for marriage, marriage was made for man”. I think that statement would really send Piper into a tailspin! If you are ever looking for empathy, we always welcome newcomers to our little corner of the web 🙂
Really late to post this, but I’ll go ahead. It’s a very interesting article from TGC about the idea of “rights” and demonstrates that it is not necessarily a bad concept:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/03/the-war-over-rights-is-a-door-for-the-gospel