I want to emphasize that I like The Shack very much. I have been recommending it whenever possible and have started the process within the church of thinking through how we get the book into the hands of people who have otherwise felt pushed aside by God and by God's people. My quandary in all of this has been--How do I name my few problems with the book without tainting the value of the book. So, I've decided to give it a shot in this blog--since no one reads my blog--in the hopes that getting it off my chest I can move in more faithful ways.
My second objection to The Shack is that the book is dismissive of the role Jesus plays as our exemplar. In a conversation with Jesus, Mack asks "You mean that I can't just ask, 'What Would Jesus Do'?" To which Jesus responds, "Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works for you, if that's the way you choose to go. Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to 'be like Jesus,' it means for your independence to be killed. I came to give you life, real life, my life. We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union on you. If you want to do your thing, have at it. Time is on our side" (p. 149).
The question, "What Would Jesus Do?" comes--ironically--from a bestselling Christian Novel of the last century, Charles Sheldon's In His Steps. It almost feels like a shot at the last century's equivalent to The Shack. The phrase has been over-commercialized in WWJD Bracelets, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and boxer shorts. But that doesn't invalidate the idea. I'm not exactly sure where to pinpoint the origins of his thought that Jesus was not to be followed as an example. Much of Philippians discusses the importance of being imitators both of Paul and of Christ. In John 13, Jesus washes his disciples feet and clearly points to their role in following his example. 1 Peter 2:21--the origin of Sheldon's book's title--also points to following Christ's example.
There seems to be something of a mysticism in what Young proposes to put in place of a conscious imitation of Christ. We surrender to the presence of God in our lives and in an almost organic way God lives through us. That sort of approach to God works for some people. However, others have faithfully lived Christian lives consciously seeking to live by the example Jesus set. A seminary professor I studied with once said, "People are generally right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny." I think Young is right in what he affirms in the above quotation. There is a mystical connection between God and believer that we can yield ourselves to. I think Young is wrong in what he denies. It is possible to authentically live in relationship with God through Christ by consciously seeking to follow Christ's example.
I tried to address these issues recently in a sermon taken from Philippians. I've posted it here.
4 comments:
Ok - this one I fully agree with the character - and I think you partially refuted your own objection with your response part #1. The WWJD process is based on comparing your options with a rational assessment - a characterization - of what Jesus would do given the same options. Since we are rarely brought an adulteress for stoning or meet an engaging Samaritan woman at a well, it becomes an exercise in abstraction. Now we certainly want to understand Jesus through the historical accounts - but we FAR more want to do so through the LIVING spirit of Christ within us. I think the author is making a clear distinction that we treat Jesus in the abstract past - ignoring the true promise and impartation of the Holy Spirit active in us. Okay this is the RUB: Current mainstream Christians do not typically experience the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a present constant companion - rather they think about rational hypotheticals like "What WOULD Jesus Do" filling in the unspoken "If He was here. Which He is not." (Pause and read that again. *) Well the author is telling people to ask the true question, the affirmation, "I hear and trust in the Lord, who is in me here and now - I will do joyfully and willingly!" (And the listening AND HEARING is implied!) Following the Holy Spirit - and even more as the Jesus character describes losing the 'me' and just becomming an extension of the Holy Spirit and therein the Christ will not always be consistent with 'good rational decision making' and that is an impasse for many believers. As Christ said best - John 3:8 "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." And we, like Nicodemus, are still asking 'how can it be?'
It’s an arrogant thing for a preacher to say—well, if you’ll consult my sermon from . . . . I apologize. I put my sermon under this post only because it’s probably the best I can do in responding. I don’t wish to defend WWJD itself. I encountered the ethical mantra “What Would Jesus Do?” like a lot of people did prior to the 90’s—through Charles Sheldon’s book. His book, particularly the first chapter, is very much in the spirit of what you have said. Its commercialization is unfortunate. But, I wouldn’t want to deny how helpful it has been anymore than I would want to deny how helpful The Shack is. Yhe syntax of WWJD maybe problematic and I thought your alternative "I hear and trust in the Lord, who is in me here and now - I will do joyfully and willingly!" was beautifully phrased and indeed very helpful. But, I don’t think we ought to relinquish the role of Christ as our Example. As I try to suggest in the sermon, what that means will differ from context to context. But the question should concern us today.
It's not an either or. I do not deny the goodness of sensing, discerning and relying on Christ’s abiding presence. We ought not replace Christ's presence with our own construction of Christ who validates our opinions. I’m just trying to suggest that the swipe at In His Steps might have been mishandled and that maybe the imitation of Christ is a resource in our path toward Christian authenticity.
You have the same issue with that part of the book just as many other people do. Some were outraged at the idea of not living with a "What Would Jesus Do" attitude. William Young actually talked about that quote in the book and what he was saying is not that we are not supposed to follow Jesus as an example, but rather that people are taking it to an extreme. Jesus did not call us to move to the Middle East, walk around in sandals and a robe, and preach to Jews in Gentiles. We are each given a set of gifts from God and we are supposed to use those according to His wishes. Some people are meant to be pastors, some doctors, some as overseas missionaries, and everything in between. Each person is given a different set of skills that he should use according to how God wishes us to use them. We are still supposed to follow Jesus' example and lifestyle, but not to the extreme of every minor detail. If that were possible then we really wouldn't need Jesus, now would we? If we could always do as Jesus did then our lives would be without sin and therefore we would not have needed him to die on the cross for our sins. He could have just come down and lived his sinless life and said, "Here you go, you now have an example of how to live. Now do it and you can come live in Heaven with me." Even the apostle Paul had issues with sin after he was a believer. He talks about it in Romans 7. Anyways, William Young meant well with what he was trying to say, he just didn't phrase it well in his book.
Outraged is probably too strong a word for my reaction.
Post a Comment