Let me begin by saying that I haven't read The Shack. My feelings on it are fairly neutral in that I'm not at all upset about it nor particularly excited about it. It doesn't really seem like my kind of book, but I wouldn't be opposed to reading it. But watch this clip by Mark Driscoll:
A few things that bother me about this, but let's just go with #2 and #1.
What bothers me almost the most is that Driscoll is questioning the doctrine of allegory, which is silly. Allegory exists to help people grasp ideas that are difficult to grasp, not to present the pictures as established facts. What I mean is that the ideas presented about God in an allegory can be heretical, but the portrayal itself cannot. If this book were shelved in Christian Doctrine, I might agree with Driscoll (sort of). But it's shelved in fiction. That means that the Holy Spirit isn't an Asian woman anymore than God is a lion named Aslan, but portraying them as such in an allegory isn't heresy. If the Asian woman's sole purpose as a representative of the Holy Spirit is to make the people she encounters rich and powerful, THAT's heretical. About 6 minutes in Driscoll addresses a few ideas about the Trinity that the Shack's author may (again I haven't read it) need to have been more thoughtful about, but attacking The Shack as if it's the Nicene Creed is absurd.
But here's what bugs me most. Catch what Driscoll says at the beginning: "How many of you have read the book the Shack? If you haven't, don't."
Here's my question; when did critical thinking become something Christians discouraged? Driscoll's suggestion (and I'm basing this on other instances as well) seems to be that we should just let him tell us what's wrong instead of doing some discerning for ourselves.
Look, I thought The God Delusion was wrong, but I'm still glad I read it. I thought The Da Vinci Code was garbage (for its poor writing and preachy story as much as its flimsy ideas), but I'm still glad I found out for myself what all the uproar was about.
I'm not saying we should put The Satanic Bible in the hands of impressionable youth, but I will say that I've read through it and my faith remained intact. Driscoll attacks a lack of discernment at the end of his talk and yet seems to say that what you do with the masses who lack discernment is to tell them what to think and not to teach them to discern. The Bible teaches us to seek and test in order to discern what is and isn't true. Those that would lead, should do so by teaching us how to think and not by doing all our thinking for us.
That said, Driscoll's more right about Joel Osteen. He even encourages his congregants to discern.
8 comments:
In order to be a critical thinker, must I engage Driscoll? :)
I think so. Which is why I continue t despite my dislike for o many of his ideas and his overall approach.
I'm finishing the shack right now. One of Drisoll's big complaints in this video seems to be on Young's critique of the "hierarchy" of the Trinity. I suppose I agree that there has been an unspoken rank (in my mind) within the Trinity - God, then Jesus, then finally, as an afterthought, the Spirit (or the Bible...if you grew up in the church I did. :)).
I can't think of where this idea came from biblically, but it seems true that ranked authority stems from domination - the opposite of service, which is at the center of God's character. Maybe realizing that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity is a small discovery for some, but for Driscoll - it is a dangerous proposal. For me, however, it released me from a false notion that positional authority was "godly" and that relational authority was "weak."
Is there any orthodox/biblical reason for us to believe Driscoll's teaching that there is hierarchy in God's Oneness?
BTW - I miss ya Kester! God bless you in the new year!
The operative word is "fiction." And as an allegory it does encourage one to think about God as a friend and source of hope, peace, etc. If you are a "heart" person you will "get it" but if you are a "head" person you won't and it might make you mad or cause you to make statements like Driscoll does. As a "heart" person I read it as fiction and was moved and encouraged. As fiction it a whole lot better than most of the junk out there in the Christian marketplace...plus it is being read by many who have missed God because of negative experiences w/in "Christianity as religion" and hopefully they will seek out relationship w/ the relational creator who is the God of the Bible.
The last comment was by me not "anonymous." That guy gets way too much credit...
Hey Kester,
man i really appreciate your approach in this post. thank you for your honest approach to such an inflammatory book.
i thought the book was masterfully done! i place it right up there with hinds feet on high places and the narnia books, but then i'm a big fan of allegory...
driscoll is not the first i've heard bashing the book. but like the others, he nearly sets off my tourette's!
i think the thing that most makes me want to cuss is that it seems he had an axe to grind going in... never giving the book a fair reading. he points to the casting of God in the person of a black woman but never references the reason "papa" chooses this personification... "papa" says very pointedly early on that he has chosen this personification to break down "mack's" preconceptions about who the Father really is.
that sounds like a very God thing to do...
he never mentions the fact that when "mack" needs a father, papa appears to him as a tall, strong man who helps him literally unearth something very important.
he also makes a really big point about deference within the trinity but apparently forgets the scene where Jesus and "sarayu" have a moment of devotion where "papa" is the focus of this devotion. a very poignant picture of deference. nor does he mention the fact that Young paints a picture of mutual deference within the trinity.
i think what happens is people get thrown early on by the choice Young makes to portray "papa" as a woman.
thanks for calling driscoll on his approach to free thinking! its as if he thinks his "flock" is just stupid...
i don't know them...
maybe they are??? but my guess is they're relatively smart people.
great post
peace
"When did critical thinking become something Christians discouraged?"
I've wondered that myself, Kester. I've noticed that even in some settings which are designed to foster critical thinking, we limit the discussion to what other Christians (and then only ones with which we're likely to agree) have to say on the subject. For example, I was part of a class once that examined various world views. Though the class did prompt some fruitful discussion at times, the biggest drawback was that our source material was written solely by Christians, who themselves seemed to approach other views as straw men.
I suspect the reluctance to engage in genuine critical thinking stems from one of two things. Either we consciously or unconsciously believe we have an inerrant understanding of God, the Bible, faith, etc., or we afraid deep down we may, in fact, be wrong, but we willfully avoid engaging with ideas that would make us uncomfortable and force us to reevaluate what we hold to be true about certain things.
The first view reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness, the latter of insecurity and a desire for comfort over truth.
After posting my initial response here, I clicked over to Richard Beck's blog and discovered his latest entry is along the same lines. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/01/certainty-and-dogmatism-feeling-of.html
Here's a salient portion from his blog:
"Specifically, once I get the feeling of knowing I may forgo any further investigation or reflection. My feeling of knowing tells me I have the answer so why sweat looking for alternatives? As a reinforcing emotion knowledge feels good, it's pleasurable. Consequently, may people stick with the pleasure of "knowing" instead of shrugging off the feeling to reenter the world of debate and argument. It takes a kind of courage to move back into uncertainty. More specifically, it takes a kind of self-overcoming, of saying "No" to yourself. "Knowing" is as pleasurable as doughnuts or ice cream and, like with other pleasures of the flesh, self-restraint and discipline may be required to move back into uncertainty. People might need a diet from certainty. How's that for a New Year's Resolution? To not be so cocksure all the time."
Post a Comment