The Shock (er)

As promised, here is my first stab at a proper review of The Shack.

*** Spoiler warning - plot details will be given away ***

Essentially the book is a theodicy. "Why does God allow suffering?" is a question that Christians have asked ever since ... well, ever since there were Christians.

The book takes a long time to answer the question but does it by making God more human. Suffering and evil is outside of God's control but he can make good things come out of it.

Therefore the incarnation takes centre stage. All three members of the trinity are represented in more or less human ways. And the thing to notice is that Mack (the main character) finds Jesus the nicest and easiest to get on with. Instead of our preconceptions about God we need to realise that 'God' is more like Jesus than the other way round. Now there is some truth in this. Of course, Jesus reveals God to us and we need to look at him to understand God. And yet the Scriptures wrestle with the tension between the immanence and transcendence of God. He is imminent in the human person of the Son but he is also transcendent in the person of God the Father. The Shack goes full out to portray God as imminent with no (or very little) transcendence.

So, God emphatically does not punish sin (p 120), rather he cures it. That's PSA out the window then. God just got nicer and more cuddly, but smaller at the same time.

And when Mack brings the toughest question of all to God - where was he when his daughter was kidnapped and killed? - God was comforting his daughter apparently. This was, IMHO, the weakest part of the book. It seemed an attempt to make palatable the unpalatable. Sometimes human wickedness and suffering is so evil that all we can do is cry out, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?"

All in all the novel (in both senses of the word!) approach to the book makes it a tricky one to tackle. How do you deal with fiction that describes someone talking to the Trinity? When you have the very person of God talking to a man then revelation must be taking place ... or not as the case may be. In other words it is easy to forget what is at stake here. Wm. Paul Young is writing a doctrine of God. People are lapping it up because our culture (at the moment) wants a God like this - a much more human God.

The problem is he is not revealed like that in scripture.

(Maybe I'll come back later to look at the pop psychology in the book.)

Human Wrongs

Most of you will be aware (thanks to Duncan) that the Federal Government appointed a Committee, chaired by Father Frank Brennan to undertake an Australia-wide community consultation on the protection of human rights.

Although the closing date for written submissions was on Monday 15th June, there is time to participate in the online consultation. The closing date for this is 26th June, 2009. Information can be found at the National Human Rights Consultation Website here

If you oppose a Bill of Rights for Australia, or want more information, you can sign a petition against a Bill of Rights here:

I've been trying to post comments to Frank Brennan but I can't even seem to login yet - I'm still waiting for them to send my password. Perhaps that should be the first right on the list ... all Australian's have the right to submit a comment on the National Human Rights Consultation?

Essentially I think it is all back to front. An emphasis on 'rights' is misplaced because it is inherently selfish. It encourages us to stand up for our own rights and the rights of our 'tribe' but it does nothing to change the human heart.

Instead the Bible talks about justice and compassion. It uses the languages of responsibility rather than rights. The only people who benefit from all this legislation are the lawyers (sorry Catherine :-) ) who make lots of money.

As Christians we should care passionately that all other human beings are treated fairly and with respect - for we are all image bearers of the divine. But that doesn't mean the 'rights' is the way to go. For a start such legislation immediately runs into problems when different rights conflict - so which rights are more important?

A common test case of this in the UK concerns human sexuality. At the moment it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation or on grounds of religion. But what if your religion calls certain sexual behaviour immoral? (as Christians and Muslims do)

Are some human rights more right than others? Are some human rights wrong?

The Shack

Okay, so it has taken a while but I've finally done it.

I put it off and put it off, but finally it had to be done.

I've read The Shack.

I'll try and write a more thorough review later but for now here are my immediate reflex reactions...

I really, really do not like this book. As the old review puts it, "This book was both good and original, unfortunately the parts which are good are not original and the parts which are original are not good."

It's not just that there is so much bad theology in it, it is that it is so badly written. I know lots of people rave about it but, for me at least, it just didn't work. It reads like a primer for Emergent Christianity 101.

I remember getting caught up in the hype surrounding Sophie's World when it came out. The idea for Sophie's World was very clever - a similar 'story' approach to philosophical history - but it soon became tedious. Along with the story there were (what seemed like) quotations from a textbook on the history of philosophy. The Shack feels like that too. The fact that it is dealing with immensely painful and emotional issues (coming to terms with the violent murder of a child) is used to mask the shallow nature of the writing. Complex issues are raised, sometimes trite and simplistic answers are given. At least Sophie's World had some substance to it.

Most chapters were entirely predictable in the questions they posed. The Shack does one thing well - it reflects our culture. If you want to know what modern man dislikes about Christianity then read this book. This is what bugged me most of all. It felt like an apologetic for pomo Christianity. There were regular sops to conservatives ("of course will still believe that") it's just that what we believe doesn't mean what it used to. It's the insistent pleading of an immature teenager, "Come on Dad (or should I say Papa!?) we still believe the same gospel ... I can't demonstrate that it is the same gospel, I just 'know' it is!"

This is Theologylite.

Oh dear.

I'm not normally this sledging in my book reviews. Still, it really got to me.

I'll do some more specific analysis later when I've got time. Hopefully that will be a bit more dispassionate.

The Church & Money

As we have seen in Malachi God's people have always had an uneasy relationship with money.

The article in the SMH today simply highlights it again.

As usual it is not hard to detect some media bias. The Rev. John Cornish was clearly interviewed simply to put pressure on Peter Jensen. It is easy to imagine a reporter sitting at his desk trying to come up with another 'angle' on the current recession ... "ummh, something about Sydney Anglicans being evil always stirs the pot a bit..."

Nevertheless it does make us think. Again.

Was the Anglican Church wise or foolish to play the stockmarket like this? Personally I think that the answer to that question is ... neither. The least the third servant (in that famous parable) could have done is put his Master's money on deposit in order to collect interest. Sydney Anglicans have been very creative in the past few decades in finding ways to see God's kingdom grow. They are to be applauded for their initiative and courage. On the other hand all of this reminds us that money and influence do not grow the kingdom, God does by his Spirit. The $100 million loss should remind us of that.

God has been humbling the Western world through the recession. That includes His Church by the way.