Next topic for The Shack

[Bct...@aol.com]

Dear Herb and readers of The Shack,

 

I like Herb's idea, below, for us to take on Young's attitude to the church, and his other anti-authority and anti-institutional positions.  Just last night I was wondering where we should go next, but was too tired to figure it out!  This makes a lot of sense.  Thanks, Herb! 

 

So let's move to that topic now, and I'll look to post some ideas of my own on this topic by tomorrow.

 

Jane

 

In a message dated 2/23/2010 11:47:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, herb....@mindspring.com writes:

Dear Jane,  Thanks for your quotes and the work you are doing with Edwards and Augustine.  This shades new light on the subject for me.  When the emphasis of the Trinity is on the imitate relationship of love between the three persons (the indwelling of the three persons) I think we are on the right track.  I think Young is struggling with this in the shack.  I do think we should take on his anti authority and institutions in the future.   Peace, Herb

 

 

[Bct...@aol.com]

Dear Gabe, Herb, Chris, and all those of us who are discussing The Shack,

 

Per my posting attached below, Herb and I had wanted our next topic to be about Young's attitude to the church, and his other anti-authority and anti-institutional positions. I am sorry that I did not get this thread started the other day, as I had said I would, and I appreciate Gabe's exhortation to us.

 

So here are my thoughts on these topics.  I feel that I have to position them in the form of questions for a study group in a congregation.  Also, I cannot write about these topics without coming across as remarkably naive or soft.  I am sure those of you who have served or are still serving in congregational or parish ministry, whether as ordained or lay leaders, will have much more to say here.  So take these thoughts for what they are worth, and let's hope together we can come up with something meaningful.  I apologize in advance for the parts that are too soft for today's world.

 

1.0 Throughout The Shack, Young expresses negative opinions of organized religion and churches. This is evident starting on page 10, when Willie tells us that Mack has a "love/hate relationship with Religion" and "is not too comfortable" in the pews of the local church. Then there is a major discussion of the church on pages 177-182, where Young puts some of his most negative comments about the church and religion on the lips of his fictional Jesus (and yes, we do need to remember that this is a fictional Jesus!).

 

1.1 On page 177, Jesus refers to the Church as his "bride" and "the woman I'm in love with," and he describes the Church as "individuals who together form a spiritual city with a living river flowing through the middle..." Mack then replies that this picture is nothing like what he has experienced in church:  "She's not the place I go on Sundays..."

 

1.2 Then starting on page 178, Jesus discusses the differences between human institutions and man-made systems, such as the church, religion, politics, and economics, and what his vision is for "a living breathing community of all those who love me, not buildings and programs."  Jesus tells Mack:  "My church is all about people and life is all about relationships (177), and says "I'm not too big on religion ... and not very fond of politics or economics either" (178).  Young then puts these words of condemnation into Jesus' mouth:  "And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of these three?"  

 

Response to his last question:  What about all the personal moral evils and sins in the world?  Murder, rape, adultery, theft, deceit, and so on and so on and so on.  Not all evil is institutional evil.

 

1.3. Jesus then says to Mack, "Systems cannot provide you security, only I can" (179-180).

 

1.4  However, at the end of this very negative discussion on the church, religion, and institutions, Jesus does concede:  "'Mack, the world system is what it is.  Institutions, systems, ideologies, and all the vain futile efforts of humanity that go with them are everywhere, and interaction with all of it is unavoidable," and he says that Mack has "wrongly judge[d]" many of the people in his church.  But these words do not do much to offset the negative words Jesus has already said, and they come across as sounding patronizing towards "normal" or "everyday" members of congregations and parishes.

 

2.0 Let's look at some of these statements from the perspective of some of Young's other major themes.  Assuming that you are using this study guide in a congregational setting, it might be difficult to discuss some of these issues, especially if you feel that you are not getting "what you need" out of your church.  But you may also be able to help others see the church in a different way, and you may come to see the church differently too, as a result of your discussions.

 

2.1 One of Young's overall messages is that everything should be all about "love and relationship" (see, for example, page 101, where Papa is talking to Mack).  Yet Young seems to suggest that these relationships do not exist within the church.  Is this your experience? Or is the church the place where you turn, for support and relationships, and to hear God's Word and feel God's presence, in good times and in bad?  For some people, their primary relationships are with others in their church, and their church is like a family to them.  Is this your experience?  Or do you not feel this way?  Do you know people who have left the church because they did not feel that the church cared about them?  Or others who would like to come to church, but hold back, because they share the opinions about churches and religion that Young expresses in The Shack?

 

2.2. Another of Young's major themes, which also runs throughout The Shack, is that human sin, going back to the Garden of Eden, is about humans wanting to be independent from God.  Young uses the word "independence" where we might say "disobedience" in more traditional Christian wording about human sin and the "fall."  But is this independence just from God?  What if it is also independence from the church? The church is "the body of Christ" on earth, and independence from the church, and its members, can be understood as independence from Jesus Christ. 

 

Reflect on this in light of what Sarayu tells Mack on page 136:  "So removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness.  Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death because you have separated yourself from me:  Life." 

 

If we separate ourselves from the church, a community of other believers and brother and sister members of the body of Christ, are we not setting ourselves up to do what Sarayu says, to draw upon only ourselves? This independence can result in evil, as Sarayu says.  It may even be evil.  It draws us away from God, not closer to God, and we will be left only to the "devices and desires of our own hearts," whether they be evil or good or otherwise. 

 

2.3 On pages 78-80, when Mack first arrives at the shack because he had received the note from Papa, Mack gets incredibly angry.  He says:  "Well I am here, God.  And you?  You're nowhere to be found!  You've never been around when I've needed you ..." and, just a little bit later, "I'm tired of trying to find you in all of this."  These words can bring up very painful memories and feelings in readers of The Shack.  

 

When have we looked for God, especially in our worship services and with our sister and brother Christians in our churches, and not found God or what we were seeking? 

 

On the other hand, when have we found what we needed, in worship or with others in our church?  How do we see and feel God, in and through the church, with all of its aspects:  its worship services, its committee meetings, its youth groups, its mission trips, its local outreach, etc.? 

 

And how do we see and feel God in the church when we are in great need and pain, as Mack was?

 

2.4 Can you imagine a church the way Jesus described it to Mack, as "individuals who together form a spiritual city with a living river flowing through the middle..." (page 177).  Institutions are needed in this world, in order for us to get anything done.  Could we fulfill our mission as Jesus Christ's people in the world, if we formed a spiritual city with a river flowing through it?  Where is God in the midst of our cities and towns and countrysides and prairies and farmlands and ranch lands today?  And how are we, as the church, there too?

 

2.5  Do you think Young's ideas about the church and institutions are biblical? The earliest Christians had to organize themselves so that some people preached the word, while others took care of members of their community (see Acts 6:1-7).  And early churches began to establish roles of elders, bishops, deacons and others (see, for example, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9).  In some cases, such as in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians, roles and responsibilities are described in terms of gifts from the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, which enable the church to function (see 1 Cor. 12:1-31 and Ephesians 4:1-16). 

 

As it says in Eph. 4:12-16, these gifts and the different roles people play, are intended "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ."   And  "... we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love." 

 

There is no doubt that some parts of the church, and some members of the church, are not always "working properly." 

 

And there is also no doubt that the church and the Christian religion have committed or supported some great evils through the centuries, which are too numerous to mention here. 

 

But it's important to remember that Young's understanding of the church and what Jesus Christ wants for the church is fictional.  Young's literary device of putting the scathing words about the church and religion into Jesus' parts of the dialogue does not mean this is the way Jesus Christ feels, nor is it biblical.  Jesus' vision of a community with living waters running through it is close to the visions in the book of Revelation, which depicts visions of a future end time.  The book of Acts and the letters of the Apostle Paul and his disciples show how even the earliest Christians, some of whom had known Jesus Christ and followed him when he was on earth, had to go about the practical tasks of organizing themselves.  They had to do this in order to fulfill the mission that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit had entrusted to them and empowered them to accomplish.  In other words, they had to do this to follow Christ in the world in which they lived.  Because they still lived in the world. 

 

Jane

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jane

1

No disagreement.  What you've written seems to me ready for editing into our "Guide to Reading and Discussing 'The Shack'" (or whatever else the publication-title may be).

2

A comment on the end of 2.2 ("independence from the church, and its members, can be understood as independence from Jesus Christ").  (A trope on an ancient axiom: "Who has not the church as his mother cannot have God as his Father, Christ as his Brother,or the Spirit as his Comforter.")  In our autonomous-individual, "spirituality-not-religion" age, it's difficult to communicate the nonnegotiability of church-going (in the wide sense, including Sunday [or Sunday eve] worship).  As a pastor in the '50s, I preached that voluntary absence from church on Sunday deChristianizes until the next Sunday (i.e., you're not a Christian until you get back to "church").  (I was orthodox about it; it i'd been fundamentalist, I'd've added "& if you die before next Sunday, you go to hell.")  /  Seriously, church attendance (Sunday worship) is not optional for Christians (though the NT's only support for the day of the week is (1) that Sunday is the day of our Lord's Resurrection, (2) that John the Revelator had his vision on Sunday (1.10 NLT: "It was the Lord's Day, and I was worshipping in the Spirit"), & (3) Hebrews 10.25. 

3

When I was in gradeschool in the 1920s, the truant officer would arrive at your home the evening of any day you were AWOL (absent without leave, missed school unexcused: it happened to me once: once was enough to cure me).  School was considered that important!  When I was in college, you got a black mark every time you missed chapel.  Chapel was considered important!  How important is church-going?  If a member is absent, should not the church act on the absence before the next Sunday?  More than once I've heard "I stopped going to church, & nobody noticed."  /  We know (from solid research) that after a person has been absent three successive Sundays with "nobody noticing," (1) other activities have taken over & (2) the guilt-removing rationalization (viz., the excuse-"reason" one would give for abandoning church-going) has solidified.  /  Front-door studies (resulting in action-proposals): why do people come to our church?  Back-door studies (resulting in action-proposals): why have [specific] people stopped coming to our church?

4

Is a mega-church a church, or an assemblage of marbles in a bag substituting for "members" (*membra* [limbs, organs, cells]) in a body?  The "community" test: knowing (and caring) & being known (and cared for).  Archeo-anthropologists tell us that pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer bands did not exceed 30 members.  Healthy large churches consist of a number of small sub-communities.  /   Gordon Cosby (who was graduated from seminary with me before WW2), founder of "The Church of the Savior" (Wash. DC), has just started small Christian groups on the model of AA (& many in the groups are AA-experienced) - the group size limited to 15.  The groups' purpose is to train church leaders, who upon graduation are to be called "Donkeys."

5

Ecclesial institutions always have been multiform.  "Form follows function," in architect Sullivan's famous phrase.  Some of the present forms are dysfunctional, & stable-flexible forms are emerging under the Spirit's impulse & guidance.  (Stable-flexible, as the human body - in contrast to (stable) turtles & (flexible) jellyfish.  /  In 1950, as one element in the redesigning of the church I was pastoring, I wrote "A Constitution for the Local Church," which was later used by the New Church Development wing of UCBHM.  I've long been not up on church-organizational life except as a church member.  But I'm aware that "The times, they are a-changing"; & churches need to reduce the institutional reasons for declining church-attendance.  Institutional reasons: institutional, cultural, & persons reasons are all factors in "The Shack" negativity toward church.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

From: Bct...@aol.com

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:00 AM

Subject: Re: Next topic for The Shack

[Jean Easland]

 

 

 

Willis: Very helpful for my efforts to revitalize this small broken church across the river! Deep gratitude as always. Your U.S. foreign policy article-----superb--I'll give it to the local editor. Blessings on you Father:        Roger

[John Cedarleaf]

Dear Jane,

Re: 1.1: "individuals who together form a spiritual city......" Gets us back to the conversation about what constiututes the church. This sounds like an evangelical understanding that saved people come together to form the church, rather than  Mercersburg's "mother of us all" appropach, which,by the way, is my choice.

John

[herb.davis]

Dear Jane,  I don't think your responses were soft at all.  You have located and highlighted the anti institutional trait that is evident in Young.  At the same time he is only reflecting what a very powerful trait in our cultural.  Individual autonomy is the highest value in American culture according to "Habits of the Hearts" and this make institutions the enemy.  So we must be gentle in trying to get folks to consider the institutions, not a spiritual church, but "a body of believers with rituals, practices, beliefs, dogma and traditions that shape our life together.  The spiritual stuff relates well to individual autonomy, institutions is a threat. 

 

In some ways the institution of the family is the focus of this book and Mack is guilty because the family which was the major institution for the "care and well being of children" failed.  At the same time related to Rick's blog on "pastor as prophet" or false prophet is the question of the fallen ness of institutions and the relationship of the Professional to institutions.  The danger in the church as present is that we take on a professional model which exempts the clergy from oversight by the deacons and elders.  So there are lots of issues here that related to ecclesiology.

 

I would think we might want to have 5 or 6 questions and maybe a short position statement.  Here are my suggestions for questions:

 

What institutions do you think are important in our lives if any?   Is your congregation or family about power or relationship?

Why are institution important?  i.e hospitals, schools, family,

Where do you find weakness?  Can they be reformed?

Do we expect too much from institutions ?

 

Just some beginning ideas.  Herb

 

-----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Bct...@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 9:00 AM
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Next topic for The Shack

[Gabe]

Jane and Shack readers,

Sorry, just belatedly getting to implementation after exhortation.

But no need for you to apologize,Jane. This is really good stuff.

Some random thoughts. Not sure yet how they might be incorporated in
the Guide as questions, comments or whatever.

1) While churches are institutions, they are not only institutions.
Somehow we should make clear they are not simply a species of the
genus, institution. "Church" has a theological dimension as well as a
sociological one--the body of Christ as well as a body of people.

2) If this divine-human Body/body is inseparable from Christ--Christ
the "head" of the Body-- then a theology with a Jesus abstracted from
this humble and sinful corporeality (simul iustus et peccator as well
as the believer being such) is unbiblical. One or more of Jane's
questions make the reader think about this.

3) In keeping with the body metaphor, I am reminded of a point made by
Tony Campolo when his son quit the mainline church for a megachurch.
Campolo said one one reason he stuck with the ABC and the like was
that, for all its problems, the "mainline" had a memory which a
church with no tradition and history behind it does not have. Ordinary
churches/Churches are custodians of the riches of Christian teaching
and experience over 20 centuries. Of course the megachurch
inadvertantly draws on the same memory when it sings the hymns, says
the prayers, tells the story/stories shaped by some tradition, etc.
The parallel point here might well be that a theology that separates
the experience of "Christ-in-relationship" from the church actually
draws implicitly on that memory bank. Where else does the author get
the very idea of the Trinity so central to the book? Think of the
struggles over 4-7 centuries that took place to refine the teaching of
one God in three Persons?

4) Back to the missing institutional piece, now in secular terms. What
sort of ethics rises out of the working theology of The Shack? Is a
social ethics possible as well as a personal ethics? Actually, the
sensitivity to issues of gender and race, and some throwaway lines,
suggest something of the author's commitment to social ethics of a
sort. But is such built into the story?

5) Of course the author strikes a responsive chord in postmodern
readers who avow "spirituality" but reject "religion," the latter
being associated with "church" or oppressive religous institutions of
any kind.

To be continued.

--Gabe

On Feb 28, 9:00 am, Bctj...@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Gabe, Herb, Chris, and all those of us who are discussing  The Shack,
>
> Per my posting attached below, Herb and I had wanted our next  topic to be
> about Young's attitude to the church, and his other anti-authority  and
> anti-institutional positions. I am sorry that I did not get this thread  started
> the other day, as I had said I would, and I appreciate Gabe's  exhortation
> to us.
>
> So here are my thoughts on these topics.  I feel that I have to position
> them in the form of  questions for a study group in a congregation.  Also,  I
> cannot write about these topics without coming across as  remarkably naive
> or soft.  I am sure those of you who have served or  are still serving in
> congregational or parish ministry, whether as ordained or  lay leaders, will
> have much more to say here.  So take  these thoughts for what they are worth,
> and let's hope together we can come up  with something meaningful.  I
> apologize in advance for the parts that are  too soft for today's world.
>

> 1.0 ThroughoutThe Shack, Young  expresses negative opinions of organized

> that Young  expresses inThe Shack?

>
> 2.2. Another of Young's major themes, which also runs  throughout The
> Shack, is that human sin, going back to the Garden of  Eden, is about humans
> wanting to be independent from God.  Young uses the  word "independence" where
> we might say "disobedience" in more traditional  Christian wording about
> human sin and the "fall."  But is this independence just from God?  What if it
> is also  independence from the church? The church is "the body of Christ" on
> earth, and  independence from the church, and its members, can be understood
> as independence  from Jesus Christ.  
>
> Reflect on this in light of what  Sarayu tells Mack on page 136:  "So
> removing yourself from me will plunge  you into darkness.  Declaring independence
> will result in evil because  apart from me, you can only draw upon
> yourself. That is  death because you have separated yourself from me:  Life."  
>
> If we separate ourselves from the church, a community of other  believers
> and brother and sister members of the body of Christ, are we not  setting
> ourselves up to do what Sarayu says, to draw upon only  ourselves? This
> independence can result in evil, as Sarayu says.  It  may even be evil.  It draws  
> us away from God, not closer to God, and we will  be left only to the
> "devices and desires of our own hearts," whether they  be evil or good or
> otherwise.  
>

> 2.3 On pages 78-80, when Mack first arrives atthe shack because he had

> received the note from Papa, Mack gets incredibly angry.  He  says:  "Well I
> am here, God.  And you?  You're nowhere to be  found!  You've never been
> around when I've needed you ..." and, just a  little bit later, "I'm tired of
> trying to find you in all of this."  These  words can bring up very painful

> memories and feelings in readers ofThe  Shack.  

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jean Easland]

Gabe: Good to have your salt shaker back on the Shack. I think your # 5
combines with the fact that this is a novel. Our culture is fascinated with
murder. Check the TV channels devoted to crime and murder. CNN Headline News
is almost exclusively about abduction/rape/murder of children or young
women. Video games gush with blood and violence. Violent sports dominate
some channels. There is no doubt alot of depth in Shack but also what sells.
The Church is no ordinary institution but the "successful" Churches and
their pastors mimic their favorite political party and agenda.-----------big
thaw is coming to the prairie, we hope slowly but what comes comes,
Blessings Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Next topic for The Shack

Jane and Shack readers,

To be continued.

--Gabe

> read more �

[herb.davis]

Sermon Note: Mar. 7, Third Sunday in Lent, Luke 13:1-9

Is there a relationship between faithfulness and success; sin and
suffering? Is there a clear pattern one can see that assures those who
follow the law will enjoy the fruits of their labor and escape sickness and
pain? Jesus says NO! Not only does he say no, but he says that is the
wrong question. It is the wrong way to live in relationship with God. Live
with God is not a game of favors and losses. It is not an accountant's
ledger. Life with God is one of repentance. It is trust and obey.

The question is not about suffering. If our Lord and Savior would suffer on
a cross how can one even suggest that suffering equals sin. Suffering or
riches are not the proper signs of faith. The only sign, according to Luke,
is repentance. If we remember our sins and God's amazing grace we may go
down to our house justified. (Heidelberg 2)

The good news is God will wait, even when all the signs look hopeless. At
least he will wait until next year. He will put on a little more manure and
prod the roots and hope that repentance is the fruit. If Luke is right why
do we shift the focus from grace to suffering?

Any additions or corrections? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

[herb.davis]

Dear Gabe, Jean and others, Gabe is on target to say the church is not just
institution but more than institution, the body of Christ. It seems to me
that Paul holds these two together in I Cor 1:1-9 where he points to "being
in Christ" and then in 1:10 where he talks about division. The Church in
our day either tends to be romantic as Jane notes on 177 Church as

"individuals who �together form a spiritual city with a living river flowing

through the �middle..." We pick up the same tread in Rick's comments about
the pastor loving the congregation, which is true but also romantic. This
is the Greenspan understand of institutions that some how do not need proper
order and decency. We must hold both together, the church is the "body of
Christ" not the spirit of Christ, the bread is the flesh of Christ not the
spirit of Christ. At the same time we have not only lost the institutional
life of the church, we have lost the depth and mystery of what it means to
be "in Christ." Again Rich touches on this. It does not mean to be right
on political issue or right on relationship, but we have difficulties going
beyond our righteousness. The old congregations understood this in the
need for an effectual experience, the Reforms understood this in the
"mystical union", we have little time for either. Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Gabe
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Subject: Re: Next topic for The Shack

Jane and Shack readers,

To be continued.

--Gabe

> read more �

[John Cedarleaf]

Dear Herb,
Thanks! As has been said many times institutions are wipping boys and
girls today. This is true politically and it is true ecclesiastically.
Just the other night at a Deacon's meeting, one of the Deacons was
commenting on a conversation among some of his friends, Roman Catholics
and Mainline Protestants about the decline of the Mainline Church. They
all agreed it was because the churches were not meeting the needs of the
up coming generation, whatever that means. Knowing this person for the
past 25years, I was fully aware that there was a little bit of a slam on
us here. For many the church is a place where I go to have my needs met;
a place where I can hear sermons, many of which are basically: "Ten
Helpful Hints for Daily Living." I decide what my needs are and if they
are being met by the particular church I'm attending and if not, then I
try another one, until I find the perfect fit. Of course you never find
it, because that is not the purpose of the church and its ministry.Even
those who are active and supportive members surprise me with their lack
of understanding of what I thought were obvious things. Here is another
example.Before a trustees meeting the other night, one of the members of
the board, an active and supportive church member, was participating in
a conversation with me about ordination and standing etc.(I chair the
COM of the association). He had no clue that people were ordained by
particular denomnations. Anyway, we've a lot of work.

John

[Matt]

Jane,

Thanks for your brilliant and thorough analysis of Young's take on the
Church. I was wrong when I said in an earlier thread that Young had
little to say on the Church; while he only devoted a few pages
directly to it (the "bride" discussion on pp. 177-79), his views on
Church are one of many threads that run through the whole book. I
didn't read carefully enough to notice.

"Devil's advocate" isn't the right term, but I'm going to try to
defend some of Young's criticisms of the Church, even though I agree
generally with your take (i.e., that he's excessively critical of the
Church).

-- For all Young's criticisms of the Church, deserved and otherwise,
nowhere does he diminish its importance. Young stresses that "true"
Church is "a living, breathing community of those who love me," but
surely he must know that the "spiritual city" he describes as having
"a living river flowing through the middle" can only exist in this
world with the aid of institutions; as Jane points out, even the
earliest Church needed some kind of rudimentary institutional support
(i.e., the original Deacons). Because Young does not deny the
Church's importance, and because his vision of Church self-evidently
requires some kind of institutional support, his criticisms of the
Church are best understood as a cry for reform. Young doesn't lay out
a detailed vision of reform, so we can't judge if he is a good
reformer, or a wolf in sheep's clothing.

-- I am deeply persuaded by H.R. Niebuhr's position on individual
morality and group morality, and the general superiority of the former
to the latter. The Church needs institutions to survive, but that
should not blind us to the tendency of institutions toward corruption
and evil. Therefore, the institutional Church will always need
reform, and if recent history is a guide, there will be no shortage of
would-be reformers anytime soon.

-- I like Young's use of "independence" to describe our rebellion
against God. Our society teaches us to prize things that, as
Christians, we should not. Sometimes, we need to use familiar words
to illuminate biblical concepts. As an example, my pastor's sermon
yesterday borrowed Brian McLaren's "insurgency of God" as a metaphor
to capture the subversive implications of the "Kingdom of God"--
implications that are too often lost because of the obsolescence of
kingdom language in modern America.

-- We may not identify with Mack, but Young is using him to represent
many people today who describe themselves as Christian: scarred by
personal tragedy, alienated from his local Church, yet deeply drawn to
Jesus. To Young, Mack represents the low-hanging fruit-- the kind of
person the Church is losing for no good reason. I think there's some
sense in this. Perhaps the emergent church (movements inspired by
McLaren, Shane Claiborne, et al.) are best suited to reach unchurched
20-somethings, but there's probably no one better suited than those of
us in the mainline to reach folks like Mack. Implicitly, Young is
calling us to evangelization; not many of the world's Macks will have
a face-to-face encounter with the one true God.

-- In addition to being fictional, Young's Jesus speaks to one man.
Even if this were holy writ, we would use historical-critical methods
to analyze the words of Young's Jesus in light of the time and place
the words were spoken, the person to whom they were spoken, and the
biases of the person who prepared the written account we have received
of those words. Young's Jesus (never mind our Lord and Savior) would
speak differently to a pastor, or a doctoral student, or a layperson
with deep ties to church who has personal baggage far different from
Mack's.

-- Young doesn't make this explicit, but his vision of Church places
great weight on fellowship. As a young Catholic in a devout family,
we rarely missed Church, but there were many people in the
congregation who I didn't know-- and very few who I knew well enough
that I could approach them now as an adult with my deepest hopes and
fears. Those relationships are more likely to be formed in coffee
hour, in Bible study, or on mission projects than in the pews during
worship. Fellowship is one thing the U.C.C. does well (in my
experience); consequently, it's no surprise that I find, and continue
to find, people who I can turn to in my times of need. At the same
time, however, I know many people who have found that, and who have
drifted away from Church as a consequence. One of my goals in the
coming months is to reach out to these people and invite them to my
Church, in hopes that they will experience the same loving,
compassionate community that I have. (When you have a disabled child
and can speak forthrightly about your deep faith in God and your
congregation's warm embrace of your family, including your disabled
child, you bring a certain credibility-- arguably undeserved-- to the
table. I hope I can use this credibility (deserved or not) to bring
more people into the Church's embrace.

Thanks again, Jane. Please take all this for whatever you think it's
worth.

Peace,
Matt

[Gabe]

Jane (and Chris(t)?),

We have been moving topically inside the Shack (as in institutions,
doctrine of the church). Will we be doing soon a next section of
pages?
--Gabe

[Matt]

Young invented Mack, but he could have quoted Tolstoy:

"The Christian churches and Christianity have nothing in common save
in name: they are utterly hostile opposites. The churches are
arrogance, violence, usurpation, rigidity, death; Christianity is
humility, penitence, submissiveness, progress, life.”

If we want to reach people like Mack, we have to begin by
acknowledging the kernel of truth in their view of Church.

[link...@aol.com]

Working on Luke 15:11-32, I came across part of an old sermon of mine
on 15:1-10.

"Which of us is not more than a bit of a Pharisee and a scribe,
grumbling, mumbling about the people we find with us in the house of
God, people who have come near, here and elsewhere, or even at home in
front of a television, radio or computer screen, to hear Jesus? Is the
church every really good enough for any of us, to meet our standards?
Aren't we all a problem to one another sometimes, aren't there
resentments at the strangeness, the shortcomings and outright sins of
those who have come near to hear Jesus? The church is full of
troublesome people and outright sinners, quite obvious sinners and
saints who soon enough prove themselves not quite so saintly. And
don't we grumble at times? I said to a friend of mine that Jesus'
words here are a promise that God is joy itself, the picture of joy,
when one lost sinner repents, and he said, 'That is not usually the
picture we have of God!" Yet, God rejoices at every single one of his
lost who have come near to hear Jesus this day! It is we who grumble,
not God! And as we grumble, we are the lost. We forget that human
beings are God's own prized possessions; yet anyone who has ever lost,
seached for and found a prized possessioin, any shepherd of a flock,
any housewife with a coin collection, out at least to have an idea of
God's joy at the church. We are lost insofar as we forget God's joy
and will not believe his invitation: "Rejoice with me!"

Jim the Link

[Gabe]

Jane,

I only get Open Forum messages now if I press "Discuss" so I may have
missed something. Are we working on the next section of The Shack? If
so, what would the pages be?

--Gabe

[herb.davis]

Gabe, I wrote a response last week on telling our story. There was some
questions in our response on weather our story or the story should be
central. Jane raised the question of truth and I wonder if we ever took
that up. But maybe I haven't received all the notes. I am just wondering
like you. Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Gabe
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:45 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Subject: Re: Next topic for The Shack

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Herb & Gabe,

 

I am probably quite out of it in the discussion right now. (Ok, I have been addicted to discussing Finney with George.) The slow down might have to do with this being the end of Lent.

Chris

God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba

[Bct...@aol.com]

Dear Gabe, Herb, Chris, Willis, Matt, and all the folks who provided substantial input on the most recent questions we were discussing for The Shack. I don't think we are ready to move on.  All of us, myself included, need to spend some time with each other's responses and questions. I was amazed at how many responses were put forward, and I saved them all so that I could read them this week and engage with you.

Gabe, if you are having an issue with receiving things, you might want to check into it, because we did indeed get some very rich postings from several people. In fact, I was hoping you would weigh in on some of them, just as I fully intend to do myself. 

 

Finally, after our current topic, I think it's time for the post-party wrap-up.  We've basically covered the book in terms of pages.  Is there any burning theological topic we've left out, that anyone out there wants to cover --- any doctrine, any issue of experience vs. other sources of authority and belief, etc.?  Speak now or hold your peace --- at least for a week or two!  :-)

 

Jane