Thomas Oord - Review of William P. Young's Book and Recent Movie, "The Shack," Part 1/3

Introduction

I loved "The Shack" when I read it, and felt the movie that came out in March 2017 was very close to the original book's message. Frankly, its themes of the love of God, man's free will to love or unlove, and the tragedy of life when beset by sin, is one of those deep areas hard to understand but tells of God's love so plainly that it becomes the very substance which makes sense of all else in this thing called life. And it is the deep realization of God's love which the author, William P. Young, wished to express based upon a severe tragedy in his early life many years ago.

What I liked about the book is that Young took all the gnarly accusations of God and centered them into a fictious figure suffering an awful tragedy who began, in parable form, the long, hard process of working out what he believed was true and later, needed to correct, about the love of God in intricate dialogue and restorative venues. Which means watching the film will not be enough. It will require a thorough reading of Young's easily read (but deeply disturbing) book, The Shack, which must also be in order. And for its themes to truly sink in, a sharing of Mac's discoveries with fellow book club members.

To do this I've provided two reviews - one by Olson, who presents a list a questions for a reader or a book club to work through along with a companion volume. And secondly by Oord, who moves to the larger themes present in the book while presenting his own companion volume related to those larger themes.

Now I hesitate to advise forming "a bible study with church members" because so many in the evangelical church will misunderstand the theology behind the book (both Olson and Oord speak to this problem). For myself, it was when thinking/praying/meditating through The Shack that I discovered  the paucity in my own thoughts about God, and then, over many years later, finally began to form my current blog/reference/website Relevancy22 to speak to this oversight and subsequent re-orientation of my thoughts about God.

Relizedly, throughout Relevancy22 the basic themes of The Shack can be found under dozens and dozens and dozens of topical headings if churchly direction is needed. But it would be best to begin on your own. If your journey is like mine, you'll find yourself re-thinking many of the church's errant teachings on God, His work and ways. For myself, The Shack's most basic message brought me back to the God I knew was there but hidden in the theology of the church thus creating conflict where it did not need to exist. This is the beauty of "Finding God" somewhere along life's journey. His/Her love comes to you from the most curious places to catch us back up to Himself/Herself even as Young learned and wished to present through the (autobiographical) novel's thoughtful arguments and penetrating lessons.

Enjoy!

R.E. Slater

March 22, 2017

Related Links:

Part 1 - Thomas Oord: Review of "The Shack"

Part 2 - Roger Olson: Review of "The Shack"
Part 3 - Scot McKnight: Review of "The Shack"

The Shack: Official 2017 Movie Trailer

A Love Theologian Reviews The Shack
blog link

by Thomas Oord

March 14th, 2017

I watched The Shack twice last weekend. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the movie. It presents God in a way I mostly find helpful. But there were some ideas that didn’t sit well with me.

I recorded a Facebook Live review of the movie, and you can access it by clicking the photo here. But I thought it would be good to put in print some of the ideas I mentioned in the video.

Thomas J. Oord: The Shack Movie

To put my review in context, I should say a few words about me. I’m a university professor of theology and philosophy who endorses open and relational theology. I’m the author or editor of more than 20 books, including my recent book, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence (IVP Academic).

The Plot

Amazon link

My comments in this essay pertain to my viewing of the movie. The movie follows the basic plot of the book by the same name. But, of course, it doesn’t include all of the details and dialogue.

For those unfamiliar with the plot of The Shack, it revolves around the abduction and killing of a [beloved] young girl. The girl’s father – Mackenzie, or Mac – cannot fathom why a loving and powerful God – if such a God exists – could allow such a horrible evil.

Mac gets a strange letter summoning him back to the shack in which police found evidence of his daughter’s death. Mac returns, finds no one, and nearly commits suicide. Upon leaving the shack, however, Mac encounters a young man who invites him to meet God. Mac spends several days back at the shack, which has miraculously become a warm home. There he speaks with God as a trinity, with God as Father played by a Black woman; as Son played by an actor with middle-eastern features; and the Holy Spirit played by an Asian actress. He also climbs [up] to a cave and meets Wisdom played by a white woman. I mention the gender and race of the actors, because they play an important role in how the author, Paul Young, wants the reader to think about God.

The vast majority of the movie portrays Mac in conversation or encounters with God and [with] those who have died. Mac has questions about evil and suffering, guilt and forgiveness. And he gets answers, while being questioned himself.

Depicting God in Movies

Before I explore the key issues raised by The Shack, let me say a few words about the attempt to portray God in movies.

If God is whom most believers think, God cannot be depicted in movies. That is, most believers think God is omnipresent and unseen. Consequently, no image could portray God.

The Shack depicts God as three individual people (or four, if you count Wisdom). I admit that this way of depicting God is not my favorite, but I don’t think this amounts to a major criticism of the movie. It strikes me a little too much like tri-theism. But this isn’t a major criticism, because as I said it’s impossible to picture God.

I like when God is portrayed as personal, so that’s a plus for The Shack, in my view. And this movie’s portrayal of God is better than Oh, God’s George Burns, Bruce Almighty’s Morgan Freeman, or Dogma’s Alanis Morrisette.

My Overall Opinion of The Shack

I liked this movie. The acting and cinematography was average; I doubt it will win any academy awards. But the theological issues it addresses are incredibly important, and the movie kept my attention throughout.

What I like most about The Shack is its emphasis upon God’s love. Like many people, Mac views God as stern, wrathful, and an aloof sovereign king. But the movie portrays God as warm, loving, accepting, and caring.

In the movie, God is called “Papa” by Mac’s daughter and others. This reminds me, of course, of Jesus saying God is “abba,” which is a name of intimacy. God often talks about being “especially fond” of people.

The atmosphere at the Shack when the Trinity is present is one of joy, laughter, dancing, smiles, understanding, and openness. It made me want to hang out with everyone, and I liked that!

Evil and Suffering

I like that the writers have Mac ask God the hard questions about evil and suffering. “You have unlimited power,” Mac says to Papa, “but you let my Missy die!” At another point in the movie, Mac says to God that “you have a bad habit of turning your back on those you supposedly love.”

The movie offers several answers to Mac’s questions about evil and suffering. I like most of them. Here are the answers I like:

God Doesn’t Cause Evil – The Shack portrays God as one who does not cause evil. “I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies,” says God. “But that doesn’t mean I orchestrate them.”

God is Present in the Midst of Suffering – God as portrayed in the movie is with those who suffer, feeling their pain, and working for good. “I’m in the middle of everything,” says God, “working for your good.” Papa talks about the death of the Son and says, “What my Son chose to do cost us both dearly. Love leaves a mark. We were there together. I never left him. I never left you.”

God Wants to Heal Those Who Suffer – Mac growls at God, “My daughter is dead. There’s nothing you could say that could justify that.” The Spirit responds, “We are not justifying anything. We would like to heal it. If you would let us.” Later in the movie, God says to Mac, “If pain is left resolved, you can forget what you were created for. That’s not what I want for you.”

God Doesn’t Punish – In one of my favorite parts of the movie, God denies Mac’s claim that God punishes creatures in fits of wrath. “Everyone knows you punish the people who disappoint you,”  says Mac. God responds: “No. I don’t need to punish. Sin is its own punishment.”

Evil, Providence and the Love of God

(in an Open and Relational (Process) Theology)

Homebrewed Christianity interviews Tom Oord

HBC link [time length: 01.17.25]

What I Don’t Like in The Shack

While there is much about The Shack that I like, I noticed that the movie doesn’t solve the most difficult question we (and Mac) ask about evil: “Why doesn’t God PREVENT genuine evil?”

The movie rightly says God doesn’t cause evil. But I noticed that whenever Mac asks the more difficult question – why doesn’t God prevent evil – he gets either silence or an appeal to mystery.

For instance, Mac says, “You’re the almighty God with limitless power. But you let my little girl die. You abandoned her.” Instead of God giving an answer for why God let the girl die, the responses Mac gets is “I was always with her.”

At one point in the film, Mac asks, “What good comes from being murdered by a sick monster? You don’t stop evil.” He gets no answer. Mac says, “God may not do evil, but he didn’t stop the evil. How can Papa allow Missy’s death?” Again, no answer.

The best Wisdom can say in response to Mac’s questions is this: “What happened to Missy is the work of evil. No one in your world is immune from it.” But that’s not a satisfying answer, at least if we think God created the world from nothing.

Several times, God says to Mac that “you misunderstand the mystery.” In the garden scene, the Spirit says, “You’re trying to make sense of the world looking at an incomplete picture.” In the cave scene, Wisdom questions Mac’s ability to know good and evil from his limited perspective.

The Problem with Mystery

While I like much of theology of The Shack, my major objection is that it appeals to mystery when the question arises of why God doesn’t prevent evil.

Of course, anytime we think about the ways of God, we must admit to knowing in part. Some role for mystery is necessary, in the sense that we should never say our views of God are 100% true. We cannot be certain that what we believe about God is entirely true.

But appealing to mystery on this key issue, The Shack's major and helpful claims about God’s love are in jeopardy of being undermined! Here’s what I mean:

The major idea of The Shack is that we should come to accept, deep down, that God loves us. I totally buy that idea, and it has been a central theme in much of my work. But when the Spirit and Wisdom chide Mac for thinking he can judge what is right and wrong / loving or not loving, the implicit claim is that we cannot know the meaning of goodness/love.

If we cannot know the meaning of goodness/love, how are we supposed to be confident that we can accept, deep down, that God loves us? If we cannot judge what is loving in one case, we can’t know what is loving in the other. It makes no sense for God to want Mac to know God’s own love, and then turn around and question Mac’s ability to know what is loving.

I’ve written about the proper role of mystery elsewhere. Here’s a link to my blog essay, “Avoiding the Mystery Card.”

An Answer for The Shack

As I see it, The Shack could have overcome the problem of appealing to mystery and the problem of our knowing what is loving if it had said God cannot prevent evil unilaterally. Paul Young should consider reconceiving God’s power.

My own work has focused on this crucial issue. I’ve argued for a view I call “essential kenosis,” which says God’s nature of love necessarily self-gives and other-empowers. Because God must love in this way, God cannot withdraw, override, or fail to provide freedom to others, including those who use that freedom to do horrific things like kill little girls.

I’ve written about this in many places, including as the central theme of my book The Uncontrolling Love of God. If you can’t get the book, you might check this blog essay for the key ideas, “God Can’t.”

Other Themes of Note

To conclude, let me mention a few other parts of the movie that struck me as important.

Not Religion: About Jesus – In the conversation between Jesus and Mac, Jesus says, “Religion is way too much work. I don’t want slaves. I want friends.” He also says that he’s not interested in label as much as seeing people transformed. “I don’t care what you call [people who follow me],” says Jesus, “I just want people to change by knowing me. To feel truly loved.”

Free Will ­– I’m a theologian who believes we have genuine but limited freedom. I was happy to see the themes of freedom in the movie. “You’re free to go anytime,” God tells Mac. “I don’t want prisoners.” Jesus says to Mac: “You can do whatever you want. You’re free to choose.” And when Mac asks, “Does what I do really matter?” God responds, “Absolutely! The universe changes for the better with your kindness. If anything matters, then everything matters.”

Forgiveness – Some of the most powerful moments in the movie pertained to forgiving those who do evil. Mac has been abused by his father. In one scene, he meets his deceased father in a scene the bridges this life and the next. Mac forgives his father. Mac also forgives the man who killed his daughter, Missy. He learns that forgiving benefits him more than anyone else. Forgiveness is an important part of healing the hurts we carry. I always need to be reminded of this truth.

Conclusion

I recommend you watch The Shack. It argues powerfully that God is always loving and especially fond of every one of us. It rightly says God is with us in our suffering, does not orchestrate evil, does not punish, and works to bring healing.

The movie doesn’t answer, however, the question of why God doesn’t prevent evil in the first place. For an answer to that question, I recommend my own work, especially as expressed in The Uncontrolling Love of God. As I see it, God cannot prevent evil unilaterally, because God’s love is self-giving, others-empowering, and always uncontrolling.

Dispensing the Ghosts in Our Lives

Mazes of the Heart

Have you ever heard the phrase,

"The better something is the worst it is?"

Here is a phrase that promises something wonderful, full of delight, satisfying, but when it comes to whatever that something is it is quite unlike our hopes and expectations.

Why is that?

The doors of our perception always seems open to the search for an inner peace built of the crystal cathedrals to all kinds of things holding promises that would give to us an inner peace and sanctuary.

But these things are not what they at first appear to be. They become something else. Something that might further entrap or disappoint us. Snares that become even more difficult to be freed from. A web of entanglement leading to further strands of lies and deceits we tell ourselves.

These are the ghosts, specters, and ghouls of our lives. The promises of heaven we hope to find which hold anything but heaven within.

There is another saying,

"The more someone believes that something will bring wholeness or completeness

to one's life, the more we flee away from ourselves where only real wholeness

or completeness may occur."

Ultimately, the key to heaven is held within us. Not within something "out there" away from us that we must obtain. Work towards. Pay money for. Or earn by acts of contrition and penitance. But within. Not dissimilar to the movie, The Da Vinci Code, as the actors race from place to place looking for The Holy Grail not realizing the very thing itself was the thing present with them all the time.

The Da Vinci Code - Official Trailer 1 [2006] [720p HD]

The Lies We Tell Ourselves

Here's another saying,

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Leading us to ask the question, "What is knowledge? What is truth?"

A simple definition would go like this,

"Knowledge is something that is known.
Truth is something that is true."

But is knowledge truth? Or can the knowledge we hold actually not be true of the truth we have thought was true knowledge?

Or, asked differently, is the truth that we believe is true actually a true truth? Or is it something else that really isn't true but gives to us an appearance to being true?

Psychologically, knowledge of truth usually brings to the surface of our lives what's already there within us. About ourselves that we already know or do not wish to know.

And yet, truth is that something that will act to change us either in healthy ways or unhealthy ways.

The Ghosts of Our Lives.

The symptoms to the problems of our lives which we hold deep within often betrays the "presence of an absence" to the real underlying problem within us that troubles us, moves us, or motivates us towards earthly expressions in character, presence, and action.

The symptom is the something that is there but not there. It is hidden from us. Or, absence from our sense of ourselves which perhaps others may more clearly see than we ourselves.

They are absent items that are present within us behaving as "felt ghosts" or "poltergeists" held deep within the machinery or our lives.

Usually my ghosts are not your ghosts. But both ghosts are the ghosts which hold repressed thoughts and feelings of personal spooks and specters which haunt us everyday of our lives. Which can disrupt us without transforming us. But, if they are allowed to be resurrected in our lives might bring the very transformation that we need.

Not the things we think we need. Nor bring to us the crystal cathedrals that are so shiny and pretty. No, these are the betrayers to the symptoms held deep within us. The personal knowledge of ourselves which we refuse to be resurrected to the truths of our being.

Hiding Ourselves in Plain Sight

We think of these things as reconfiguring structures that hide from us the true knowledge of the truth about us. They don't necessarily say what they mean to us but become expressed in a variety of personal ways that define us as us. And yet, buried deep within is the very thing that truly needs expression which we hold at bay allowing only glimpses of it without becoming fully displayed.

We don't say what we mean by saying what we cannot express. Words and actions become the metaphors of our lives. They are the political and psychological structures within us holding us hostage to its makeup. The stuff which frightens us when too boldly expressed. That we don't know what to do with when we see it. And then push it down again from our vision less it disrupts us.

Poetically, we wish to unhide that which is hidden. To bring to the surface what's not being said. To allow the evidence of ourselves to actually reveal what is actually there rather than not there.

But again, here is a place of real disillusionment. There are truths that can reform and allow for transformation. And there are truths that may bring us death when refusing its transformation.

In a sense, we wish to "name what refuses to be named" which brings us next to the idea of "crisis."

A Crisis of Being

A crisis is something that when brought up can rupture us with the result of bringing new life or a deeper death. It may be a crisis of relationship, as it often is. Relationships that are messy and requiring a crisis if they are to find a reformation between ourselves and others.

Here's another saying,

Some relationships need to be buried while others need resurrection.

Transformation cannot begin without some kind of action on our part.

These vulnerable places of transformation may be handled either directly, or indirectly. Sometimes one method of handling transformation is more successful than another method.

That is, we might work at transforming relationships by being "directly indirect" or "indirectly direct." We see this often in music, comedy, and art. They can push at an idea directly or indirectly to get us to acknowledge the something that's there but hidden. Something we do not wish to see.

Too, the idea of time comes up. How hard do we pursue a transformative-something into our lives without losing its objectives of personal insurrection? This is a God thing. At times the backwards look can be helpful. At other times the present and forward look. But pushed too far (or not far enough) holds us back from real transformation.

There is then presence of a Spirit-filled patience. To be content with ourselves and yet always discontent with the presence of non-transformation. To allow crisis within our being and yet to not expect that any one crisis may be enough for complete resurrection. To be patient with both ourselves and with God praying always for divine leading and wisdom.

The Value of Time and Living

Overall, its takes a lifetime of transformative experiences to bring us to the knowledge of the truth  of who we are and what we are seeking. Or perhaps never saw nor understood. Or saw but never wanted it present in our lives till now.

New knowledge can be radical. But it can also be defeating when radically present within us. Carried within ourselves without ever realizing that the key, or answer, to redemption was there all the time.

Not out there in this thing or that. But within. This is the kinds of stuff Jesus spoke to. That renewal began and ended within us through His Father. And that our journey was in all the in between stuff that would aid us in our journeys towards redemption, renewal, and transformation.

Allowing both the Good and the Bad

As such, do we let that foul mix of gruel residing within us remain within like a witch's brew? Hidden, as it were, to become infected and ulcerous?

Or, by the power of the Holy Spirit, let what was once repressed become confessed and healed and transformed?

To abandon the inner decorum of the lies and deceits that dresses up our lives without displaying itself. Remaining hidden on the edges of our lives without ever quite becoming visible to us while-all-the-while we think we are embracing truths about ourselves that are not true truths. But symptoms of truths still lying deeper. More hidden. Ugly, hurtful, death-like.

And yet, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit of God who can remove this stubbornly unyielding goo of our inner lives to death so that God's perilous life of light and healing become truly resurrected to the dead zones of our heart and soul and being.

No Guarantees

Certainly there is no guarantee of results by following the proverbial truths of life,

"Live well. Be wise. Create healing and wholeness

with tact, truth, and forgiveness."

In fact, these truths may actually hide ourselves from ourselves through acts of good works.

Not that they shouldn't be done. But what are the motivators to these good works? What are they hiding to us that we need to see more clearly? How often have you heard of ministers of God failing big time when finally their inner selves become exposed to themselves and their congregations?

Too often.

And why?

Because these good people with good intentions were hiding from themselves the very truths that needed clarity.

The heart can be a deceitful thing and oftentimes it is we ourselves who are the people that need transformation and resurrection. Not the other guy.

Making Choices

So then, by living a "good life" of expectations and good works we might expect three results:

Life still goes bad.

Life becomes better.

Or, we might begin a journey of discussion with ourselves and with others that may be self-revealing. Healing. Transformative.

It is this later that gives us hope.

To no longer repress the poltergeists within but to express the Holy Ghost within.

To become a new man or woman who is redeemed and remade by the Spirit of God within by living life by God's merciful healing and transformative experiences.

However hard. However painful.

But to allow His Spirit to sweep us as clean as He can given the restrictions of our unwilling heart and soul.

Living a truer life based upon a surer knowledge promising a truer something that is better. A something within us we know as the love of God given to us by Christ our Savior who binds up His broken people at all times, stages, and circumstances of their life both within and without.

Here's one last quote,

Learn to love. Both yourself and others.

And love the Lord your God, the Lover of your soul.

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all

your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind';

and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" - Luke 10.27 (NIV)

R.E. Slater

October 31, 2014

based upon a sermon by Peter Rollins

at Mars Hill in Grandville, Michigan on October 19, 2014

Below is the link to Peter's discussion: "The Truth Will Set You Free"

http://marshill.org/teaching/2014/10/19/the-truth-will-set-you-free/





The Da Vinci Code - Chevaliers de Sangreal
[Audio Soundtrack]

Minister to Monsters: How an American pastor gave comfort to the Nazis

Amazon link

The definition of civility is whether a religion might reach beyond itself to do the right thing. Here is an instance of a Christian minister who reached beyond himself. Against all the revulsion within himself, to do what was right to a band of human-rights abusers and genocidal monsters of mankind.

Of the wickedness, evil, and oppression the Nazis on trial had committed upon small children, mothers, fathers, aunts, and uncles, grandparents, families, and friends, was uncontested. Even for Henry Gerecke, a Lutheran minister, who witnessed their sinful deeds and held them accountable before the Judge of all mankind, was a fact he too could not deny. But of the grace and mercy that is made known in Christ Jesus the Savior and Forgiver of men, this truth was a truth that Henry had also to acknowledge as a minister of the grace of God in the gospel of Christ.

It was also a truth that had to be faced by those who were to to be executed for their heinous crimes against humanity. Of the truth that what they did was evil. And that what Jesus had done in His atonement was for all evils - not just those select sins a humane society might deems more evil (and unforgiveable) than others. As difficult as it was for Henry Gerecke to minister to these cruel men even so he knew the truths of the gospel were explicitly written for "such a one as these."

It is a truth that the Christian faith acknowledges there is evil in this world. Even now, this past month's events have shown to the world the brutal evils of ISIS' inhumanity to unfortunates caught in their web of terror and horror. But cruelty exists on many levels - from the injustice done to children in the home by unloving moms and dads, to the sins that exists on so many levels of our human existence. However unfortunate the act of sin, the truth is that in Christ has God made propitiation for the sin of the world through the atonement of His Son Jesus.

This is a spiritual truth that goes beyond human understanding. That is wiser than we can many times allow. That is the harder to admit when seeing the crime of the criminal. The Christian faith has been tested and in its wings rests the terrible truths that all are sinners. That all are held accountable. That all stand guilty before the God of creation.

But it is also true that in Jesus - and by His atonement - men may find salvation through repentance from sin to the One who has borne all the sin of the world. It is what is described as salvation. That upon the cross of Calvary hung One who died at the hands of unjust men that for those unjust men might God's holy salvation be effected for all time.

Christianity admits to the evilness of mankind but it also admits to the redemption of God that can justly remove evil's sentence of spiritual death. Its faith is most appropriately fulfilled by humanity when observed in this life and lived to its fullness. But it is also a faith that can reach past the fallenness of mankind to disturb its evils and hold all accountable before the holy One of Israel.

Justice is defined in a God who not only judged mankind as fallen but has also saved mankind from its fallenness. Who not only commanded judgment upon sin but did something about the judgment to be rightfully executed. For it was in Himself - the God of creation - that sin might be bourne upon His holy Person in Christ, the Son of God, who was very God of very God, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Who was obedient even unto death that He might bear the sin of mankind and be raised as Redeemer to the penitents of this wicked world. Who, like ourselves, was deeply repulsed by evil's cruelty and wanton affects. But unlike our sinful hearts demanding cruelty in return, had given His very self for its necessary judgment and payment.

This is a God-act that the redeemed heart of the Christian finds so hard to acknowledge or enact. It was an act of confession that Henry Gerecke undertook against the vileness to his own sense of injustice and condemnation. It was what marked his crucified faith against the sensitivities he rightfully held for the land of the living. He wished to condemn and execute upon the witness of the Nazi camps of the Holocaust, but his very hand was stayed by the all merciful hand of His Redeemer God who commanded justice in forgiveness. And forgiveness in judgment. Amen.

R.E. Slater

August 30, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

God at Nuremberg: How an American pastor came to comfort Nazis

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/22/god-nazis-jews-holocaust-nuremberg/

by Kimberly Winston

August 22, 2014

Comments

(RNS) He was a minister to monsters.

That’s what Tim Townsend writes of Henry Gerecke, the unassuming Lutheran pastor from Missouri who shepherded six of the most notorious Nazis to the gallows in “Mission at Nuremberg: An American Army Chaplain and the Trial of the Nazis.”

The book is one of a string of new titles that dust off a remote corner of World War II history — the role religion played both in and beyond the conflict.

“That’s why I wanted to write this book,” Townsend said from Washington, D.C. where he is a senior writer and editor for The Pew Research Center.

“A large part was trying to figure out why did the Allies provide spiritual comfort for men who were on trial for what was ultimately called the Holocaust,” he said. “They clearly did not have anyone’s spiritual welfare in mind when they were murdering Jews, so why did we feel it was necessary and humane to provide them with chaplains to see to their spiritual comfort?”

Townsend combed the National Archives for some piece of paper, some order that explained more deeply why the Allies felt those charged with the most horrendous crimes of the century needed — even deserved — a chaplain of their own, beyond the fact that the Geneva Conventions required it.

Beyond the rules of international law, American culture has long accepted the idea chaplains ministering to criminals from the common thief to the death row murderer.

Townsend finds his answer in Gerecke, a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor charged with caring for men such as Hermann Goering, Albert Speer and Wilhelm Keitel — men responsible for the mass-extermination of six million European Jews. How, he asks, did he understand his role in leading the condemned Nazis to their deaths?

Tim Townsend’s 400-page “Mission at Nuremberg” details an American Army chaplain’s mission to save the souls of Nazis imprisoned following the end of World War II. RNS photo courtesy Heidi Richter, HarperCollins.

Gerecke volunteered in 1943, when the Army was desperate for chaplains. His unit was sent from England to Germany after the Germans surrendered in 1945.

There, he visited Dachau, where hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed and cremated in ovens.

As the Nuremberg Trials began, higher-ups heard there was a German-speaking Army chaplain and asked Gerecke to take on the role of ministering to 21 high-ranking Nazis on trial for their lives.

In saying yes, Gerecke played one of the most puzzling and under-examined roles in what Townsend calls “the judicial improvisation we now call the Nuremberg trials.”

“Gerecke was the perfect choice,” Townsend said. “He was able to go in with his mind and his eyes wide open. He had seen Dachau, he knew what these people were responsible for but he was able to move past that in terms of his ability to relate to them.”

Townsend thinks Gerecke looked beyond the terrible men imprisoned in front of him to the children they had once been. One of the most lovely — and chilling — pieces in the book comes when Gerecke accompanies Keitel up the 13 steps of the gallows and prays aloud with him a German prayer both were taught by their mothers.

“He knew that he needed to save the souls of as many of these men as he could before they were executed,” Townsend said. “I think for him he thought it was a great gift he had been given.”

And not one he took lightly. Gerecke did not give communion to any of the Nazis unless he believed they were truly penitent and made a profession of faith in Jesus. Only four of the 11 sentenced to hang met Gerecke’s standard.

One who did not was Goering, who many historians credit with helping to create “the Final Solution,” the genocide of the Jews. When he and Gerecke discussed the divinity of Jesus, Goering disparaged the idea.

“This Jesus you always speak of,” he said to Gerecke, “to me he is just another smart Jew.”

Gerecke held that unless he accepted Jesus as his savior, Goering could not receive communion.

“You are not a Christian,” Gerecke told Goering, “and as a Christian pastor I cannot commune you.”

Within hours, Goering was dead, robbing the hangman by swallowing cyanide he had secreted in his cell.

In the end, Gerecke walked five men to the gallows. After the war, he was criticized by some of his fellow pastors for not granting Goering communion. And he was criticized for ministering to such monsters in the first place.

During the trials, a rumor spread among the Nazis that Gerecke would go home before the end. They wrote a letter to his wife, Alma, asking her to please let him stay. That letter, which Townsend first saw in a St. Louis exhibit, led him to the story.

“Our dear Chaplain Gerecke is necessary not only for us as a minister but also as the thoroughly good man that he is,” the letter reads above the signatures of Goering, Keitel, Speer and others. Then it includes a word Townsend writes is not often associated with Nazis: “We simply have come to love him.”

YS END WINSTON

Kintsukuroi - "Broken Jars of Clay Repaired with Gold"

We are but broken jars of clay

healed by the precious blood of Jesus

made more beautiful for the imperfection ...

- R.E. Slater, August 14, 2014

But now, O LORD, you are our Father;

we are the clay, and you are our potter;

we are all the work of your hand.

- Isaiah 64.8

But we have this treasure in jars of clay,

to show that the surpassing power

belongs to God and not to us.

- 2 Corinthians 4.7

there are some pots that

are cracked,

others that leak,

that can give no service

until bound-up and restored

into service’s assembly

and there, in service,

find fulfillment,

not in itself,

but in what it bears.

- from Jars of Clay, R.E. Slater, November 7, 2011

Voices of Dissent - Unfolding God's Love Within the Heart and Conscience of Humanity

We have oftentimes spoken to the issues of God's sovereignty as it relates to human free will and to the indeterminacy of nature. It is one of those privileges that God has given to us when intricately creating our world and ourselves. But whenever thinking of this subject we must also remember to speak to (i) the "weakness of such a God" who gave to us our free will. As well as to (ii) the immediate consequence of sin that human freewill presented when used apart from God's heart of love and justice; His plans, purposes, and prerogatives. Or to (iii) creation's indeterminacy that was immediately set in motion to act out its natural beat of randomness and chaos (giving to us quantum physics, evolution, and human birth). Nor should we neglect (iv) sin's corrupting influence upon God's indeterminate design at the very onset of His holy fies of freedom. Nor even (v) God's willful sovereign-partnership initiated between humanity and Himself presented in a non-coercive manner which leaves the future as open to us today as it is to God Himself in His timeful, incarnate eternity. Even as our dear Lord guides all His creation through time and space towards renewal and recreation (as previously discussed under the several theological categories of relational theism, process theism, and open theism, amongst other topics here discussed).

Now perhaps I haven't summarize these concepts as eloquently above as I've stated them in my past articles under the banners of postmodern, post-evangelic (or, emergent) Christianity, but in a nutshell when we speak of Calvinism's misuse of God's sovereignty we are saying that as a theology it has gone deeply astray from these many biblical ideas mentioned at the outset of this article. Certainly, we have more than adequately shown its  doctrinal abuses and misuses (sic, refer to the various sidebars under "Calvinism," "Love," "Love Wins," "Church," etc.) and have offset its verbiage with a more helpful understanding of "Arminianism" as its theological polar opposite.... Leaving us to sort through just what, if any, of Calvin's theology might be kept. However, in today's posting, Scot McKnight chooses to tamper down Calvinism's excesses without writing much more in the way of its pros and cons. His is a moderating position cautioning the reader to remember God's love is not austere, but in all ways perfect, fair, and equitable. And that it is we ourselves who are free to roam God's universe in determination of whether His love is exactly that or not.

And to those of us who doubt God. Who distrust God. Who don't understand why things work out in life as they do, be at peace.... God has made room for our disbelief, our  heated arguments, anger and questioning spirit. It's what God calls "free will." But in the end, one doesn't lose God's love for expressing the more honest human emotions and tempering attitudes of our questioning spirit, but rather we lose the love of the church for confronting its many false arguments and misperceptions that have been perpetrated in the name of God. Of one's Christian peers and teachers, family and friends, who proclaim the false non-sequiturs of God's holy love by unholy words and deeds. For the many misrepresentations of what a "biblical Christianity" supposedly "is" that has been willfully denied - and willfully reimaged - that is, "God's Good News of His Love" - into an assortment of austere, excluding, creedal confessions fraught amongst dithering Christian folklores and spurious religious ideologies purporting "goodness and light" where none can be found.

All of which has caused thinking postmodern, post-evangelic Christians to rightfully question how we, as free willed human beings, could be so gravely mistaken over such a simple concept as the love of God, choosing rather its unloving opposite of social exclusion and enculturated hate, as the church's more proper political platforms for the Gospel's outreach of Jesus. It isn't a recent phenomena. No it began long, long ago through the past expiring ages of the church until finally discovered lying amongst the many ruins of God's faithless people Israel. Even as God's person and being, His love and goodwill, was disseminated untruthfully amid the more ancient pagan worlds surrounding Israel by its own many essays and literatures, philosophies and assertions, of humanity's dithering freedoms, God's austerity and fickleness, and life's too-brief-beauties amid its present corruptions, lies and deceits.

As such, there must be made room for those of us who would rightfully question unjust, unloving church statements and ill-informed Christian perceptions, to play the role of the "apostate" in the eyes of some in order to help the church at large to better behave its voice and depictions of God's holy love. Without such voices of dissent and disruption we would remain within the unholy violence of our own sinful hearts as they play out our own misguided bigotries and vices, harms and injustices, upon the unempowered minorities of our cultural wars.

In the end, a true apostate is one who refuses God's love willingly, not its institutional portrayals as told to him or her by a well meaning priests or pastors. Even Jesus Himself was viewed as an apostate by the Jews of His own religion while ever being true to His knowledge of God's holy love. The cost He paid was at the expense of the hell held within our own apostate hearts that would reject God's love and nail it to a bloody tree beheld of spear and broken body. And the miracle - the mystery of it all - was that by Jesus' willing sacrifice He brought us nearer to God than any faith law or religious creed, rite or ritual, could ever have done. That is the miraculous strength of divine love. A faith that God has given to us that no ruling creed or dogma of man, by pulpit or by press, can ever remove.

For this is the depth of commitment that God's love gives to us in the re-discovery of His own love for the you-and-I over any church doctrine however meticulously laid out in the foolishness of mankind's heart. Misspending valuable energies attempting to distinguish who is "in" and who is "out" of God's kingdom (sic, predestination, election, hell, etc). Certainly God's love has made fools of us all. But to those truer theologians and wiser bible teachers who steadily work to apply God's love to all our doctrines of God and church, God bless you. May His Spirit give to you a wisdom and discernment little found in the vast majority of His sheepfolds yearning for great, and good, shepherds. Who would labor heart-and-soul in the vineyards of life's sufferings, pains, and injustices. For these good shepherds lie everywhere about us - and not simply within the folds of the church office, nor within the congregations of His grieving servants.

Nay, God has placed His faithful shepherds everywhere throughout the many societies we live within - from the overworked nurse at our local hospital, to the overwhelmed social worker serving on our city streets. From the black-robed justice behind the civil bench, to the listening governor behind his elective desk. From a patient business woman working steadily against male pride and hubris, to the policeman and fireman willing to protect and to serve, to care and defend. From a kindly neighbour or caring relative, to a weary school teacher and overspent friend. These are God's kingdom pieces whom He moves about the spiritual chessboard of His loving, all-gracious heart, who Himself is patient, kind, longsuffering and compassionate. Who is of immeasurable understanding and suffering heart. Who seeks to draw near to us even as we draw near to Him. Who is our reflection even as we look to be His. So then, may God's peace, wisdom, and love be ever yours, both now and always. Amen.

R.E. Slater
June 12, 2013

*as always, any comments made by myself to any following articles posted below, will be marked as mine own and highlighted as separate from the author's presented material, if only to help make that article's depictions of ourselves, God, and the church, clearer in content and character. Thank you.

* * * * * * * * * * * *


Scot McKnight vs. Those “Pesky Calvinists”:
What Does it Mean for God to be Sovereign?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/06/scot-mcknight-vs-those-pesky-calvinists-what-does-that-mean-for-god-to-be-sovereign/#

by Peter Enns
June 12, 2013
Comments 

Kindle Edition only - $3.47

Last week I read a brief e-book that just came out by my friend Scot McKnight, A Long Faithfulness: The Case for Christian Perseverance. His point is a simple one and he gets to it in the very first paragraph: McKnight doesn’t like how “the resurgent Calvinism” talks about God’s sovereignty.

These “pesky Calvinists,” as McKnight calls them, promote “meticulous (or exhaustive) sovereignty,” where all things that come to pass are determined by God (weather, disasters, murders, sexual abuse, etc).

Though applicable to many issues, McKnight focuses his comments on personal salvation, namely whether someone can “choose for God and then later choose against God.” In other words, whether someone truly saved can lose that salvation.

McKnight makes it clear he is not arguing for Arminianism, nor is he critiquing all of Calvinism. He is just going for the “meticulous sovereignty sort,” such as John Piper, D. A. Carson, Mark Driscoll, and David Wells, as well as the institutions that “prop up these voices.”

McKnight says one can lose his/her salvation–it’s called being apostate. Calvinist theology, by contrast, includes “double predestination,” that God determines who will be saved and who will be damned. Though acknowledging that Calvin himself did not teach this, and many Calvinists do not adhere to it, for McKnight the two are necessarily linked if you adhere to “meticulous sovereignty”–for God to choose sovereignly one group means he is also choosing sovereignly the other no matter which way you slice it.

McKnight takes direct aim at this view by turning to the “warning passages” in Hebrews (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1-29).

Here is a quote from the introduction to set up the book’s argument:

My aim is to defeat this view of meticulous sovereignty among resurgent Calvinists by showing that the biblical view of sovereignty–a robust version if ever there was one–means God has chosen–because he loves those whom he has created and grants them freedom–to limit his sovereignty by giving humans that freedom. My argument is not philosophical; my argument is biblical. I affirm what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty, and biblical sovereignty entails human freedom both to choose God and un-choose God. If that view of sovereignty can be demonstrated from the Bible, then resurgent Calvinism’s view of sovereignty is unbiblical, pastorally disastrous, and harmful to the church.

After an opening chapter outlining his own journey through Calvinism and relaying the story of Dan Barker–who went from preacher to atheist – McKnight spends most of the book in Hebrews. He interprets each of the warning passages through the lens of four questions: Who is the audience? What is the danger? What are they to do instead of the sin? What will happen if they don’t respond properly?

McKnight’s conclusion: According to Hebrews, “God gave us the freedom to choose, but if we choose to walk away we will be damned.” [( ... and I will add that we will be damned by ourselves alone if refusing Jesus atonement for our sins... - res)]. Hence, meticulous sovereignty in salvation is wrong. In the concluding two chapters, McKnight looks at the profound practical implications of these warnings and briefly how all this relates to another biblical theme, God’s faithfulness to us and the “assurance of salvation.”

For me, I am not so sure what place in the pecking order the “rhetoric of warning” in Hebrews should have in New Testament theology, but that is a huge issue that McKnight only touches on in this brief book. At the very least, interested readers will find McKnight’s exposition of Hebrews thoughtful and compelling, and one that “resurgent Calvinism” will not be able to answer easily.

* * * * * * * * * * * *


About the Book

Amazon.com (Kindle Edition only) - "A Long Faithfulness," by Scot McKnight

Publication Date: May 2013

Can we choose and un-choose God? Or does he choose and un-choose us? In The Long Faithfulness: The Case for Christian Perseverance, theologian Scot McKnight examines what the Bible says about human salvation. Inspired in part by a resurgent Calvinist movement and its particular emphasis on God's meticulous sovereignty, McKnight invites us to a clear and captivating discussion about securing the way to eternal life--the role God plays, the role we play, and the key Bible passages that illuminate the mystery of salvation.

* * * * * * * * * * * *


A Long Faithfulness: Preface
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/05/20/a-long-faithfulness-preface/

by Scot McKnight
May 20, 2013
Comments

The following is from my new e-book, A Long Faithfulness: The Case for Christian Perseverance. The aim of this book is to present how the warning passages in Hebrews teach perseverance and the possibility of genuine apostasy of genuine believers, and this theme is applied to the notion so popular today called “meticulous sovereignty,” that God determines or brings about all things. If humans can resist God’s will, or undo their redemption, a case can be made that meticulous sovereignty overreaches the biblical evidence. As such, the e-book is not a direct challenge to Calvinism but to one kind of Calvinism, and neither is it a challenge to what I call the “architecture” of Calvinism. Now to the preface.

The aim of A Long Faithfulness is to cut the central nerve—the sovereignty of God—that informs a dominant theme in the resurgence of Calvinism in our time. Mind you, I affirm God’s sovereignty as the foundation of our faith, so my aim is to defeat one particular but pervasive conviction about God’s sovereignty in the resurgent Calvinism.

That particular but pervasive understanding of God’s sovereignty is what might be called “meticulous” (or “exhaustive”) sovereignty. In regards to this subject, there are only two real options: either God determines everything (meticulous sovereignty) or God does not determine everything. A well-known example of meticulous sovereignty can be found in various statements made by notable evangelical leaders in the wake of natural disasters, such as hurricanes from Katrina to Sandy. If one affirms meticulous sovereignty, then one must also believe God decided, desired, and carried out the weather conditions, the speed and direction of the winds, the deluges of water, and precisely which homes would be destroyed and which homes would escape.

If God determines everything (as in the meticulous sovereignty approach), then God not only permits but must determine that some young girls and boys will be abused while others will be spared, that some adults will suffer more in this life while others will suffer less.  For this essay’s purposes, it is not relevant how tragic situations are explained (e.g., that we are all sinners who deserve these tragedies and even worse; or that God wants to make an example of humans as depraved). What is relevant is that—in this understanding of divine sovereignty—God determines everything, that God can do otherwise but chooses to bring about awful conditions and events.

This essay takes direct aim at this belief.

But this essay is not about human tragedies, but about God’s sovereignty when it comes to personal salvation. My theme is whether or not humans can both choose for God and then later choose against God; whether or not saved humans can become unsaved humans; whether or not humans can choose to walk away from the grace they’ve experienced; and whether or not they would have entered into the eternal blessing of God had they remained fast in their faith.

For the meticulous sovereignty view, God determines—for whatever reasons—who gets saved, and that means—whether the resurgent Calvinist will admit it or not—who does not get saved. I’m aware that John Calvin himself did not always teach this theory—called double predestination—but that this was a development later in his theology.

I’m also aware that not all Calvinists—perhaps not even the majority—affirm double predestination. No wonder! It’s morally despicable for God to create humans only to send them to hell because he did not choose them, when they could do nothing about it, and that this somehow glorifies him.

It may be the case that many Calvinists do not believe in double predestination, but that will not for one moment undo the necessary logic of election as many Calvinists understand it. If God is the one who both awakens and creates faith in the human, and if the only ones who believe in Christ are the ones whom God has chosen, then anyone not chosen is un-chosen by not being chosen. Double predestination is not an option for those who believe in meticulous sovereignty because it is a necessary corollary—even if it is hidden in the corner or if alternative explanations are offered.

My aim is to defeat this view of meticulous sovereignty among resurgent Calvinists by showing that the biblical view of sovereignty—a robust version if ever there was one—means God has chosen—because he loves those whom he has created and grants them freedom—to limit his sovereignty by giving humans that freedom. My argument is not philosophical; my argument is biblical. I affirm what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty, and biblical sovereignty entails human freedom both to choose God and to un-choose God. If that view of sovereignty can be demonstrated from the Bible, then resurgent Calvinism’s view of sovereignty is unbiblical, pastorally disastrous, and harmful to the church.

* * * * * * * * * * * *



"The Church Doesn't Like the People to Grow Up."
- Bishop John Shelby Spong





Bellarive - "Love Has Found Us."