How Should We Defend Ourselves?
Sometimes healthy questions receive bad answers. As I said before, Christianity can face the tough questions and provide deeply coherent explanations and answers. However, sometimes the answers given fall short; they are unsatisfactory.
I came across this blog post recently, in which a Christian author, Wayne Jacobsen, defends his writings against various accusations, including heresy. This is not a critique of The Shack, but of his response. I know Wayne a little and have spoken with him on this subject. I won't detail our conversation except to say that, while it ended amicably, we still disagree quite strongly. His blog post grieved me and deserves a response. As he did not allow my response to be added as a comment to his original post, I will place it here.
Apparently some folks had written some pretty critical things about the book, and Wayne felt it necessary to respond through his blog. He calls attention to critical reviews on Amazon.com, although it should be noted that 85% of the reviews were 5 stars, and less than 6% were 3 or lower – hardly controversial by most standards. I suggest you read the entire article first.
The Best Defense
I tire of the self-appointed doctrine police, especially when they toss around false accusations like ‘new age conspiracy’, ‘counterfeit Jesus’ or ‘heresy’ to promote fear in people as a way of advancing their own agenda.
…the hostile tone of false accusation
…people want to use a book like this to polarize the God’s family
…people read their own theological agendas into a work, then denounce it as heresy
…the ravings of those who misinterpret this book, either threatened by its success, or those who want to ride on it to push their own fear-based agenda.
The opening defense is really more of an offense. It puts his opponents on the stand, classifying their motives as self-serving and controlling. This is a tempting approach for almost all of us when under fire, establishing an even playing field as quickly as possible. However, it is also as uncharitable as the criticisms that spurred the original post. Is he right about his critics having an agenda? Maybe. Does it matter? It shouldn’t… a proposition should be evaluated on its own merits, and the bias of the critic should be considered only after that... otherwise we are guilty of bias ourselves.
God Will Tell Me If I'm Wrong
But such reviews also confuse people who are afraid of being seduced into error and for those I think the false accusations demand a response.
Here the motivation is given: it's not about himself or his own reputation, rather he is standing up for the weak and unsuspecting. But is it unreasonable to ask a person to explain themselves? Some of the criticisms I read on Amazon.com were calm, concise and cogent. Do these not warrant some sort of response? Or does the author believe his work to be beyond admonition? Take a look at this statement from another earlier post in which Wayne responds to charges of heresy:
If my deluded soul needs to awaken, you’re welcome to pray to that end. I think Jesus is quite capable of taking care of that, if need be.
This gives the impression that the only person qualified to correct him is Jesus Christ Himself. It reminds me of a local (but globally known) preacher who once said:
“I no more believe that my God is going to let me stand around and believe a lie than I believe that I am going to turn green in the next two minutes. God is my source and He loves me and I am after God with my whole heart. And if I am accidentally, or any other way, getting into error, I am going to have a bell go off on the inside of me that is going to be so loud that not only am I going to hear it, but so is everybody else.”
The problem with such statements is they insulate a person from any criticism, giving them an air of infallibility, rather than humility.
I Mean Well
Let me assure any of you reading this that all three of us who worked on this book are deeply committed followers of Jesus Christ who have a passion for the Truth of the Scriptures and who have studied and taught the life of Jesus over the vast majority of our lifetimes. But none of us would begin to pretend that we have a complete picture of all that God is or that our theology is flawless. We are all still growing in our appreciation for him and our desire to be like him, and we hope this book encourages you to that process as well. In the end, this says the best stuff we know about God at this point in our journeys.
This puts motive ahead of doctrine. If my motives are pure, you have no reason to doubt what I say. I may not have everything figured out yet, but I know I’m okay because I love God dearly. Listen, teaching is evaluated based on the content, not the motive of the speaker. Truth is truth, and error is error. What's in the teacher's heart is largely between him and God. The complaints I read were not that The Shack was an incomplete picture of God, but that it was a wrong picture of God.
Not Wrong, Just Incomplete?
Is it a complete picture of him? Of course not! Who could put all that he is into a little story like this one? But if it is a catalyst to get thousands of people to talk about theology—who God is and how he makes himself known in the world—we would be blessed.
It's not of first importance to get people talking about God. It's most important what we get them talking about. If people aren't talking about God as He has revealed Himself, then they're talking about someone else. This is called idolatry. And we don't have to know or write about God comprehensively (we never will) to represent Him faithfully.
Motive Again
I know how threatening my thoughts can be to those who think they have the only expression of church life that God sanctions in the world. Theirs is a darker prison, unfortunately, and I always hope to write something that might put a crack in the door to a brighter world.
Again, the smokescreen of motive. The author believes so strongly in the viability of his writing, that his critics simply must be negatively motivated... in this case by feeling threatened. These people live in a "dark prison," into which he hopes to bring some light. There may be some individuals that feel their ideas of Church are threatened by this book, but it's a big stretch to assume that's the case for everyone. This is a classic straw man play: putting the opponent in an indefensible position.
But those who confuse the issues by making up their own back-story for the book, or ascribing motives to its publication without ever finding out the truth, only prove our point.
Ironically, the author accuses his critics of playing the same game. I'm sure there have been some irresponsible criticisms levelled against The Shack, but those are in the minority, from what I have seen. You can't go after the motives of your critics, while simultaneously chastising them for doing the same to you.
Conclusion
As Christians, we proclaim truth with our words and our lives. We will be asked to defend our faith at times. I hope that we do it in a godly manner, treating our critics fairly and respectfully as we seek to further the cause of Christ in this world. May we "sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us, yet with gentleness and reverence;" (1 Peter 3:15)
I came across this blog post recently, in which a Christian author, Wayne Jacobsen, defends his writings against various accusations, including heresy. This is not a critique of The Shack, but of his response. I know Wayne a little and have spoken with him on this subject. I won't detail our conversation except to say that, while it ended amicably, we still disagree quite strongly. His blog post grieved me and deserves a response. As he did not allow my response to be added as a comment to his original post, I will place it here.
Apparently some folks had written some pretty critical things about the book, and Wayne felt it necessary to respond through his blog. He calls attention to critical reviews on Amazon.com, although it should be noted that 85% of the reviews were 5 stars, and less than 6% were 3 or lower – hardly controversial by most standards. I suggest you read the entire article first.
The Best Defense
I tire of the self-appointed doctrine police, especially when they toss around false accusations like ‘new age conspiracy’, ‘counterfeit Jesus’ or ‘heresy’ to promote fear in people as a way of advancing their own agenda.
…the hostile tone of false accusation
…people want to use a book like this to polarize the God’s family
…people read their own theological agendas into a work, then denounce it as heresy
…the ravings of those who misinterpret this book, either threatened by its success, or those who want to ride on it to push their own fear-based agenda.
The opening defense is really more of an offense. It puts his opponents on the stand, classifying their motives as self-serving and controlling. This is a tempting approach for almost all of us when under fire, establishing an even playing field as quickly as possible. However, it is also as uncharitable as the criticisms that spurred the original post. Is he right about his critics having an agenda? Maybe. Does it matter? It shouldn’t… a proposition should be evaluated on its own merits, and the bias of the critic should be considered only after that... otherwise we are guilty of bias ourselves.
God Will Tell Me If I'm Wrong
But such reviews also confuse people who are afraid of being seduced into error and for those I think the false accusations demand a response.
Here the motivation is given: it's not about himself or his own reputation, rather he is standing up for the weak and unsuspecting. But is it unreasonable to ask a person to explain themselves? Some of the criticisms I read on Amazon.com were calm, concise and cogent. Do these not warrant some sort of response? Or does the author believe his work to be beyond admonition? Take a look at this statement from another earlier post in which Wayne responds to charges of heresy:
If my deluded soul needs to awaken, you’re welcome to pray to that end. I think Jesus is quite capable of taking care of that, if need be.
This gives the impression that the only person qualified to correct him is Jesus Christ Himself. It reminds me of a local (but globally known) preacher who once said:
“I no more believe that my God is going to let me stand around and believe a lie than I believe that I am going to turn green in the next two minutes. God is my source and He loves me and I am after God with my whole heart. And if I am accidentally, or any other way, getting into error, I am going to have a bell go off on the inside of me that is going to be so loud that not only am I going to hear it, but so is everybody else.”
The problem with such statements is they insulate a person from any criticism, giving them an air of infallibility, rather than humility.
I Mean Well
Let me assure any of you reading this that all three of us who worked on this book are deeply committed followers of Jesus Christ who have a passion for the Truth of the Scriptures and who have studied and taught the life of Jesus over the vast majority of our lifetimes. But none of us would begin to pretend that we have a complete picture of all that God is or that our theology is flawless. We are all still growing in our appreciation for him and our desire to be like him, and we hope this book encourages you to that process as well. In the end, this says the best stuff we know about God at this point in our journeys.
This puts motive ahead of doctrine. If my motives are pure, you have no reason to doubt what I say. I may not have everything figured out yet, but I know I’m okay because I love God dearly. Listen, teaching is evaluated based on the content, not the motive of the speaker. Truth is truth, and error is error. What's in the teacher's heart is largely between him and God. The complaints I read were not that The Shack was an incomplete picture of God, but that it was a wrong picture of God.
Not Wrong, Just Incomplete?
Is it a complete picture of him? Of course not! Who could put all that he is into a little story like this one? But if it is a catalyst to get thousands of people to talk about theology—who God is and how he makes himself known in the world—we would be blessed.
It's not of first importance to get people talking about God. It's most important what we get them talking about. If people aren't talking about God as He has revealed Himself, then they're talking about someone else. This is called idolatry. And we don't have to know or write about God comprehensively (we never will) to represent Him faithfully.
Motive Again
I know how threatening my thoughts can be to those who think they have the only expression of church life that God sanctions in the world. Theirs is a darker prison, unfortunately, and I always hope to write something that might put a crack in the door to a brighter world.
Again, the smokescreen of motive. The author believes so strongly in the viability of his writing, that his critics simply must be negatively motivated... in this case by feeling threatened. These people live in a "dark prison," into which he hopes to bring some light. There may be some individuals that feel their ideas of Church are threatened by this book, but it's a big stretch to assume that's the case for everyone. This is a classic straw man play: putting the opponent in an indefensible position.
But those who confuse the issues by making up their own back-story for the book, or ascribing motives to its publication without ever finding out the truth, only prove our point.
Ironically, the author accuses his critics of playing the same game. I'm sure there have been some irresponsible criticisms levelled against The Shack, but those are in the minority, from what I have seen. You can't go after the motives of your critics, while simultaneously chastising them for doing the same to you.
Conclusion
As Christians, we proclaim truth with our words and our lives. We will be asked to defend our faith at times. I hope that we do it in a godly manner, treating our critics fairly and respectfully as we seek to further the cause of Christ in this world. May we "sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us, yet with gentleness and reverence;" (1 Peter 3:15)
Comments
Think I might have recognized one of those unattributed quotes there.
Good reasonable response, well thought out and logical.
"And if I am accidentally, or any other way, getting into error, I am going to have a bell go off on the inside of me that is going to be so loud that not only am I going to hear it, but so is everybody else."
Really! Please inform me of how this is supposed to happen and what kind of bell I should listen out for.
A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one I used to believe and live and defend--including that exact statement.