Dialogue, Baby, Dialogue (and a short statement of application)

Part 5: Dialoguing with others on the whole Gender debate

As you know, we are all about dialogue around here and I have three people to whom I owe some feedback on the gender issue. I also owe a brief statement on how I apply my understanding in a church context. So without further ado, let's figh... err... dialogue.

Interacting with "Not-nervous-egalitarian" Jim Robinson, part 2

(if you want to read Jim's comments they are found here and here)

Greetings once again Jim,

I appreciate your interaction. I like interacting with people I disagree with. Hopefully this can be helpful for both of us. I am going to disagree with a good deal of what you said. Some of it will be because I think your facts are wrong, some of it will be because I have a different opinion, some of it will be because I don't think you really understand the other side of the issue. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you've read Grudem and Piper and assumed that anyone who calls himself a complementarian is a piperite and/or a grudemite. That is simply just not the case. I wouldn't assume you agree with Paul Jewett's take on this issue just because you are both egalitarians (he argues that Paul is wrong and mistaken). On all of these issues there is a wide spectrum.

I think we agree in principle on something but you need to rephrase it. You keep saying that the complementarian position is based in post WWII legalism. Don't say that. The complementarian position has been the default position of the church for two thousand years. People who are complementarians today are complementarians because that is the most straightforward interpretation of the words of Scripture. That doesn't mean its right, but don't you have to at least acknowledge that this is a hermeneutics issue? You keep saying that this is a legalism issue. It's not a legalism issue. It's a hermeneutics issue. Saying that we can't listen to rock music, drink wine, go to movie theaters, or grow facial hair are legalism issues. "Christian" rules that have no biblical basis can rightly be called legalism. A position that has a clear biblical foundation is not being held because of legalistic extra biblical rules. It may be a misunderstanding of the "spirit of the text" but its not legalism. There are complementarians who say that this is an authority of the Bible issue. They would accuse you of not accepting the Bible's authority. Clearly, this is not fair. Its an interpretive issue. To label it as either an authority or legalistic issue is not fair. Let's properly define the debate. Although some legalists may be complementarians, just like there are some egalitarians who believe that the Bible is riddled with errors, does not make it a legalistic position or a legalism issue.

You are absolutely right when you say that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture. Until recently, we've always had a patriarchal culture. But because the culture is no longer patriarchal does not mean that we should abandon complementarianism. And likewise, as you would fairly argue, just because the culture in Biblical times was patriarchal does not mean it was ideal or God's design. The question at hand is not what the culture is or was but what the Scripture teaches or doesn't teach.

Let me also say that in some aspects of the word I am a feminist (can a man be a feminist?). I am against the abuse and devaluing of women. Although I think that the Bible teaches differing roles for men and women, I am strongly opposed to the abuse of women. If a woman had a husband who was abusing her I wouldn't just tell her to submit (would anyone????) I would have the bum thrown in jail! Neither I nor anyone I know would tell a woman whose husband had an affair and divorced her that she was going to hell. What does that have to do with the issue though? I 100% agree with you about the pay issue (see my last post). As a friend of mine (Nate Duriga) said, "the abuse of the position does not mean that the position is wrong." It seems that you're arguing against the abuse of the issue but have not addressed the issue itself.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you or being unfair. I am trying to be as fair as possible. I know that there are people on both sides of the issue who aren't. Let's not imitate them.

Disagreeing with my own side of the debate: Dialogue with Surls

Because I've already posted several comments on your blog, some of this may be a bit repetitive but I'll try and keep it brief.

For part 1 (Robust Complementarianism from Genesis):

I don't think Genesis offers much in the way of supporting complementarianism, Robust or otherwise. It can be read in light of complementarianism, and then applied assuming the complementarian position, but I don't think it can be used to prove it. I don't think any of your points (man being mentioned first, woman called "helper, etc..) can be used to prove the complementarian position. I think that they are all CONSISTENT with complementarianism, but I don't think Genesis teaches it.

Let me say in support of your point that if God had intended egalitarianism, I would think you would see it taught or implied in Genesis but you don't. The culture assumed a patriarchal society and there is nothing to counteract it. one of the reasons complementarianism is not taught in the Old Testament is that I don't think it needed to be. The instructions in the NT are clearly corrective in light of some issue that needed to be addressed, apparently more than once in more than one context.

Part 2: The Rest of the OT

Yeah I had a lot of beefs with this post and you kind of retreated a bit (at least you said you shouldn't have posted it) so I won't reattack it. I don't think there's really a case there.

Part 3: The New Testament

I was surprised at what passages you didn't deal with but it seems that you are focusing more upon the issue as it relates to the marriage relationship and not in the church, so that's probably why you dealt with the material you did. Regardless, I only have good things to say here.
Very good points about the "traditions which I handed to you." There seems to be a universal formula here that Paul and Peter both use. Certainly this is something universal, not merely situational because some wives were subverting things. Right?

And Duriga, with whom I just can't seem to disagree

As I've told you in person Nate, it rather disturbs me that our takes on these issues are so similar, especially considering how similar our backgrounds are (homeschooled, Liberty, NBS). But I really have nothing to disagree with in your post. Even worse, you stole a lot of things I wanted to say. All I can do is highly recommend that everyone who reads my blog and doesn't read his should read his second-to-last post. It is well stated and points out many issues that need to be addressed from our side of the theological fence.

So to finish... here's me doing what I don't want to do....

All right, I admit it. I don't know how to apply my nervous complementarianism yet. That's part of the reason for the 'nervous'. But my uncertainty cannot be an excuse for not applying something. So here is how I would apply my position, but keep in mind, my position is still developing.

-I would not have a woman as a head pastor of a church.
-I would not have a woman preach to the whole church.
-I would have women on staff of a large church. I don't care what their position title is- pastor directer whatever- because pastor isn't really a biblical position (elder is, and though I am in theory a multiple elder guy, but I don't think there's practically a big difference. I don't have a problem biblically with the way it developed). Regardless, a woman on staff should be paid the same as a man would for the same position/work.
-I would allow women to teach at a seminary
-I would allow women to teach certain classes at a church
-I would believe it is my responsibility as the husband to lovingly lead my household. I would discuss and makes decisions jointly with my wife. The only time I would ever "use the submit card" is in an area where I felt strongly convinced biblically about something. Even then I would always try to reach a consensus. There would, I'm sure, be many many times when I would submit to my wishes to my wife's wishes (like what we're doing friday night, what I'm wearing to the Joneses, what house or neighborhood we move into etc...).

Is there something I'm leaving out that I need to address?

This completes the primacy of this issue on my blog. I will continue to interact with Nate and Austin as they deal with the issue. For now, I'm going to continue my work on my "Apology of Hell" and I think I may do some stuff on a theology of animals. Nate and I have discussed some ideas for what we are doing next. More on that later.

Further and Future Dialogue

This post has two primary purposes and both are reflected in the title, though neither can probably be discovered therein. The first is to further our dialogue on The Shack. If nothing else, this book has encouraged a great deal of dialogue and for that I am very grateful. I am going to respond to my good friend Austin and his thoughts on the Shack, as well as my sister's thoughts and reflections. Both make good contributions to the conversation. This dialogue would be worthless if it did not help us better shape and nuance our views and I hope this post will indicate some movement in my own thoughts and evaluations about this now almost notorious work of fiction. We'll see how long this is a big deal though. Sometimes these fads fade so quickly that you look back three months later embarrassed at how big a deal you thought some temporary fad was going to become. But dialogue, especially theologically focused dialogue, is never a waste of time so I will not fear that we are wasting out time.

The second part of this post will concern the future topics of conversation for trinity of bloggers. Obviously there are others who read and interact with out blogs, and for all of you we are very grateful, and we read and interact with other blogs, but Austin, Nate, and I have formed a little trinity in which we read and interact with each others thoughts and questions. I have some proposals for where to go from here. More on that later.

Talking about The Shack... part two

Responding to Crista,

First of all let me just say how much I love and appreciate my little sister. It may, and probably does, seem like this is said out of obligation but it most emphatically is not. My sister has grown and blossomed into not only a great writer, but a very good thinker. I appreciate her thoughts on the Shack and her obvious commitment to staying true to the truth of God's word. If you wish to read her thoughts they are found here. Do not fear, she is nowhere near as longwinded as I am.

I think one of our major disagreements, as we look at the book, will stem from the way we see words. Remember that it is the gospel that is the stumbling block, not an outdated vocabulary. Trying to witness to someone in greek or latin or hebrew will certainly be a stumbling block but there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing that stumbling block! So it is with many words that we, as Christians use. The word Christian is loaded with connotations that are offensive, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity. Our decision to use or not use the word should take into account the response and perceived meaning of our listeners or readers. Same with Institution, Church, religion etc.... Unfortunately we often replace these words with words that imply other unintended meanings (relationship, follower of Jesus, etc...), or are different but don't really help solve the problem. Nate, Austin, and I have talked a lot about the religion/relationship question and I think we have come to a consensus that neither term is sufficient by itself. Another kind of example is the church that I go to. Our name is "Prairie Baptist Fellowship", substituting fellowship for church. This is good because fellowship does a better job communicating what a church should be. This is very insufficient however, because, outside of our Christian bubble I do not think we use that word anymore. It doesn't actually communicate what we want it to communicate with the audience with which we want to communicate. It might do better than 'church', but it doesn't quite do it. If nothing else, I just want to indicate how very hard, difficult, and complicated all of this is. Don't take this wrongly, but I'm not sure you've had enough interaction with people outside of the Christian community to understand how much we live in a postchristian society. We must reevaluate our language and means through which we communicate if we are ever going to be able to reach people. I want ot make sure you understand that I am not advocating changing the message- we ought to remain committed to the gospel- but changing the language and means through which we communicate that same message. I think that Young's intended audience is not average Christians who go to church every Sunday, but disillusioned people who have either been "hurt" by the church or suspicious towards organized religion. I think he understands these people well and is able to speak their language. But will his book be read by these people? I have no idea.

I primarily agree with what you say about the tameness of God. I think the main problem is his view of submission and authority. He is overtly egalitarian, in every single relationship.

I think the biggest problem with my review, as long as it was, was that I did not interact with Young on the church. He was far too harsh on the church and did not properly focus upon the need we, as human beings, have for the church body, or the obligation we should have to it. Thanks for pointing that out.

As far as the whole thing about the Bible, I understand what you are saying, I think, but I don't have as big a problem with it as you do. You have to understand that one of his purposes was to correct the 'putting of God into a Bible-sized box'. This is very offensive to those of us who place so much importance on the Bible, and rightly so, but it is a fair critique in many ways. Often we think of our own personal Bible reading as the only way we can know and grow in our relationship with God. He wants to remind us of the importance knowing God in other ways, especially prayer. Unfortunately, and this goes back to my previous point, he misses one of the most important sources, the church family. This is unfortunate.

I don't intend this to be a last word between us about the topic. I would appreciate your further thoughts if you have the time and inclination.

Responding to Austin Surls

Secondly, I would like to interact with Austin's thoughts (though not really a review of) on The Shack. I so wholeheartedly sympathize with Austin's lament about Systematic Theologies and Commentaries, but I am short on solutions to the problem. I also want to express my appreciation for Austin's background research on the author and the provision of various links to his blog, defenses of the book, and explanations of some of the controversial aspects of the book. Unfortunately for Austin's newly discovered love of controversy, I have no beefs with his thoughts and have almost nothing else to say.

I will give short responses to his four questions however. I sincerely hope this will make him happy.

Is it okay if people are being deeply affected positively by a book other than the Bible? If that is okay, why is it okay?

Of course! For books written by Christians, is this not a role of the body of Christ? To encourage and help each other? If this comes in book form, so what? If from a nonChristian source, discretion should be used (although this is also true of Christian sources) but I do not believe that they are devoid of any benefit for a believer. In some sense, all truth is God's truth. Human beings, lost or redeemed, still bear God's image and are capable of reflecting that image through their writings, paintings, and poetry. We need to be careful, but with wisdom, we can derive benefit from a great breadth of sources.

Is the Church as bad as Young makes it out to be?

No. The church is not perfect, but it is not as bad as either Young or most of our generation makes it out to be. The church, for all of its faults, is beautiful and we ought ot be extremely grateful for it.

Is it possible to over-emphasize the relational aspect of Christian faith?

Yes, but with so many words spilled about this topic on our blogs already I'm not going to add to them here and now.

What do we do with the Old Testament descriptions of judgment? Does that square with God as presented in the New Testament?

Good question. I think it does square with the God of the New Testament. Remember two things: the wrath of God and Jesus on the Cross, and the book of Revelation. God's wrath does not go away in the NT and His love and mercy are not absent in the OT. This question may warrant further conversation.


Future Dialogue Proposals

Austin Surls wants controversy. Unfortunately we have had a difficult time finding areas with which we all disagree. This is frustrating the poor boy. I may have a solution. Dr. Willsey handed out a list of current controversial trends in theology. It is full of good ideas for future blogging conversations. Austin has the handout, Nate has seen the handout, but here are a few of them that interest me. Let me know (the rest of you too) which interest/excite you the most.

Annihilationism
Openness Theology
Emergent Church Movement
Evangelicals and Catholics Together
Divine Immutability
New Perspective on Paul
Gender Roles
Personal and Ecclesiastical Separation
Bioethics
Theology of Worship and Music

I would be willing to go into any of these, and I imagine that there will be good chance for some benefit and controversy along the way. Let me know what yall think.

Continuing the Conversation: Response Blog

Art: Eduardo Bertone y Martin Boccicchio





As you know if you follow this blog, I occasionally dedicate a blog post to respond to Austin Surls and Nate Duriga and their respective blogs, and they do so for me and each other as well. Due to Christmas break, there was a general slowdown in the "blogging production" but it would appear that things have begun to pick back up and so here we go again. Apologies to my readers for the two monstrously long posts consecutively. I hope I didn't lose anybody because of it.

Responding to Nate Duriga

Nate has several posts to which I have yet to respond, but I will try to say something about all of them. Some responses will be more full than others however.

In a response of sorts to Austin's impertinent questions about the word 'spiritual', Nate quotes Johnathon Edwards concerning the relationship between our spirituality and the Holy Spirit. Being spiritual is related to the Holy Spirit and His works. He rightly warns us to be sure that this is clearly defined when we use the term, as others may easily misunderstand us as their definition may be very different than ours. As I reminded a guy in my youth group today, communication goes two ways: intended meaning and received meaning (I'm sure there are technical terms but...). If we are to be teachers and/or preachers, communication will be very central to our profession and we must take responsibility to communicate in such a way that the intended meaning is conveyed successfully. So my question is, should we use words like spiritual, which are so easily misunderstood, from the pulpit or in the classroom? Or should we begin to use "substitution words/phrases" that people will more readily understand?

To make Austin happy if for no other reason I'm going to disagree with Nate a little bit on his evaluation of postmodernism. I don't there is so much in conflict between postmodern thinking and everyday life. I think that the difference is between science and postmodernism. Postmodernism has drenched philosophy, the humanities, ethics, and theology, but it has not had much, if any, effect upon science. Science and the scientific establishment is still not much doubted. I'm curious to see if this changes. Where the uncertainty lies is not in the findings and declarations of science or the scientific community but what they mean. Similarly I don't think that the findings and 'hard facts' of history are wholly doubted, just the significance of these findings. Global Warming, or Climate Change as they now call it, has been presented as a scientific fact. We haven't gotten to the place where people doubt science... yet.

I liked Nate's Christmas post and I share his frustrations concerning the 'Christmas Spirit' and whatever that means. As I said in the comment section, I think when the world at large speaks of the 'holiday spirit' it generally means feeling good about oneself through the celebration of whatever tradition or belief system you prefer. As for what the Christian Christmas Spirit should be I agree with Nate. Philippians 2 baby!

I don't really have much to say about Nate's latest two posts. I liked the poem he posted and I liked the book he reviewed. In our culture of tolerance, it has become way too easy to wink at sin. It is hard to take sin seriously. Our society has the attitude of "everybody messes up - its no big deal- just deal with it man... don't have a cow... chill out... don't feel guilty or bad about yourself... you have to feel good about yourself." As Christians we ought to reflect God's attitude towards sin. We should hate sin but be merciful, graceful, and forgiving towards sinners. We ought also to be humble because we are ourselves very far from perfect. Loving the sinner and hating the sin are not opposite ideas that are held in tension. We should hate sin because we love the sinner. Sin not only is offensive to and rebellion against God. It is not only harmful and destructive towards other humans. It destroys the sinner. It pushes them further from God, further from what God created them to be. Even those who sin in their own 'self interest' are deceived. In the end sin destroys. My sin is a cause of pain, struggle, and sorrow in my life. I don't think I can think of any sin in my past that I now rejoice in. Loving people should and must include hating sin. Sorry for the rant.

Responding to Austin Surls

I won't respond to Austin's Shack stuff yet. I'll wait for his promised thoughts that are yet coming.

That leaves me to respond to his three posts on postmodernism. I'm beginning to tire of the word. Maybe I'll become a postpostmodernist so we can debate that instead... if I'm ever able to understand it that is. Anyway...

I appreciated Austin's survey of postmodernism. It was helpful and fun to read. I also liked his 'positives about postmodernism' and fairly well agreed wholeheartedly with what he said. I said some things in the comments but otherwise I'll leave that as that.

That leaves his 'postmodernism is dangerous' post. I agree that postmodernism is both good and bad, depending upon which aspects of the system we are discussing. I'm not sure I appreciate Johnny Mac's pugnaciousness at all. I grew up in a pastor's home and I still very much appreciate and love my father, his life, and his ministry. Unfortunately as much as I like Dr. Macarthur and love my dad, they both, as is characteristic of many of their generation, have a propensity towards pugnaciousness and a closeminded 'I've already made up my mind' theology. I respect my father. I respect Dr. MacArthur. But their approach to theological dialogue is unhelpful (notice I did not say their approach to theology... but their approach to theological dialogue). Their approach is either ignorant of church history or arrogant in regard to their own ability to 'figure everything out'. Hard foundationalism ignores the fact that the theological system one holds to did not exist (completely) five hundred, two hundred, even one hundred years ago. Theological dialogue is essential to doing and understanding theology. Too often conservative theologians are too defensive of their own theological system to dialogue with those with whom they disagree. They do not read others to understand or learn from them but to debate and defend themselves. When you refuse to learn from certain sectors of the theological spectrum, you tragically limit challenges to your thinking, which, consequently, limits your ability to actually think about what you believe, Defensive theology allows no room for correction and does not lend itself to real dialogue. Let's always defend the truth of the gospel, but be open to the possibility that we have made mistakes along the way. As our own theology would remind us, we are fallible sinful beings and do make mistakes... a lot of mistakes! That being said, I do want to emphasize that I appreciate many things about Dr. Macarthur. I will echo his confidence in the core of the gospel. But let's be gracious and humble while we dialogue with and learn from each other, even those with whom we strongly disagree, and refrain from judging the genuineness of their faith. That's God's job and He does it better than we do.

Book Review: The Shack:

Preliminary Matters

I usually stay far away from the Contemporary Christian Fiction category. Like the Contemporary Christian Music genre, I find it to be, in general, of an inferior quality and shallow in content and significant thought. There are, of course, exceptions in the CCM genre that I have discovered and love to listen to, but I cannot, when considered as genre, stomach the shallow and cheesy lyrics, inferior music, and extremely irritating DJs on their radio stations. But even though I have looked for and discovered exceptions in the CCM genre, I have not even bothered in the CCF category. I read and greatly enjoy C.S. Lewis, but everything I have looked at coming out today is like eating unsalted grits off the floor in comparison to a top sirloin steak at a 5 star restaurant. You can listen to a song, roll your eyes, and forget about it, but to invest the time to read books that will most likely be a complete waste of time is somehow less appealing.

My whole point in saying this is that The Shack is not the type of book I normally would pick up and read. But I kept hearing about it and the emotions connected to people’s evaluations were so strong that I felt that I had to read it to know what they were all talking about. Some people felt it was the greatest book that they had ever read. Others thought that it was heresy. I twice had people approach me after I preached at other churches and ask me if a certain statement in the book was heresy or not. This was very intriguing to me and since I had people who kept asking me if I knew anything about it or what I thought about it, I figured that it would be fun to read it and write up a review over my Christmas break. Making the prospect more fun was talking to my sister who had read in the book and had already formed very strong opinions from what she had read (negative opinions) but agreed to read it with me and both put up evaluations on our perspective blogs. I look forward to her review whenever she finishes up.

There are two types of book reviews and evaluations that I cannot stand. The first is the book review that worships a book and its author without any view at all to its faults and shortcomings. This reviewer will get angry at the slightest criticism of the book’s content or author. The other reviewer that frustrates me is the hypercritical type that refuses to interact with or engage the book or the author. This reviewer is either threatened by the slightest difference in another’s viewpoint or just enjoys ripping people apart without any recognition of the contribution of the book or reception of the potential benefit he might receive in reading it. What I have seen of people’s reviews on the recent controversial bestseller The Shack have been almost exclusively in one of the previous categories. They either love the book and are offended at the slightest criticism of it, or they hate the book, tear it apart, and begin organizing a book burning service.

There is a third type of book review however, which may be full as bad as the previous two. It’s the book review that refuses to give a real evaluation. The reviewer will say some good things and some bad things, seemingly out of obligation to both categories. He’ll conclude by saying that the book is worth reading but that there are either some things to be cautious about or some minor yet important shortcomings that one should be aware of. Before I even began reading the book, I had already decided to write such a review. I was going to point out the good things and bad things, say that the book has value but be careful for certain things. But as I think about it, how is this really interacting or any kind of an attempt at an honest review if I decide ahead of time what basically I’m going to say. A good review will point out positive and negative aspects but not out of obligation but from an honest attempt at dialogue. I do have good and bad things to say, but I am trying to give an honest reaction to the book and its contents and not just say what I should say out of an obligation to form.

This review will be an attempt to avoid all of these extremes. The Shack has invoked a lot of strong feelings both ways but it does deserve, methinks, a place in the theological conversation. It is well written and the dude writing it knows theology well. Whether Young’s theology is the correct theology or not is another matter completely.

A quick warning. If you have not read the book and plan to, I may give some things away. I don’t really think that’ll ruin the book for you as it’s not really a mystery novel or anything, but if you would rather read it first then wait on reading this. I will not even try to be sensitive to not ‘ruining the book.’

Okay, enough talking about reviewing the book… review it already!

Book Summary: If you have already read the book you can kind of skim this…

The book begins with a guy who receives a letter in the mail that proposes meeting him at The Shack if he wants to talk, signing it Papa (his wife’s favorite name for God). This invokes an angry response from ‘Mack’ and we begin to go into his past story to see why. He went on a camping trip with his kids (his wife couldn’t go for some reason – work maybe) in the wilderness of Oregon. While he is saving one of his kids from drowning in a canoeing accident, a serial killer kidnaps his 6-year-old daughter and after an extended chase and investigation, they find evidence of her murder in a little shack deep in the woods. They never find the killer and they never find the body but her bloody dress the police find in the shack leaves little doubt that she was dead. This horrific event causes what he calls ‘The Great Sadness’ to descend upon him from which he cannot seem to recover. He blames himself, is angry with God (though he masks it, sort of), and has a hard time communicating effectively with his wife and kids. On a weekend at home alone he receives this note supposedly from ‘Papa’ and there we are, all caught up.

Against, perhaps, his better judgment, he decides to go. If it’s the killer, he’s bringing a gun, if it’s God then he can voice his complaints and have at it. So he drives up to the shack at there he meets God and the real story begins.

But God is not what he expects! Instead of an ‘old white guy with a beard like Gandalf’s’, he finds a big black woman with ‘a questionable sense of humor’. For most the rest of the book he gets to know God. The father is the first person (the big black woman). The Son is a laid back Jewish Carpenter. The Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman who is really hard to see clearly. Ultimately, he gets to see how much God loves everyone and the love that is within the Trinity. What they want from him is not religion or to follow any set of rules or any set of obligations but a relationship. God (the father) listens to Her ipod, not CCM or hymns, but various secular music by musicians past present and future, all of whom She (don’t panic over the pronouns please, at least not yet) loves particularly. She doesn’t get angry with Mack or point out how or why or if he’s wrong but basically just ‘hangs out’ with him without an agenda helping him get to know Her better. Mack hangs out with each of the persons of the trinity, gets to know them and Him (at the same time). They are all God, all one, what one knows they all know, where one is they all are, yet they have different personalities and roles. God doesn’t force anything on Mack because real love ‘doesn’t force itself’ but rather He brings Mack to the place where he can know Him better and ‘heal the wound’ in their relationship. After a while (I don’t have time or space to summarize everything), he goes into a cave for judgment. But the judgment is not God judging him but he gets the chance to judge God. After judging God to be wrong for not preventing his daughter’s death he is forced to judge the world and between his children. He is told to choose two of his children to spend eternity in the ‘new heavens and earth’ and three to spend an eternity in hell. Not able to do this, he begs to be able to suffer in their place. This is the right answer because it was God’s answer, He judged them all worthy of love and sent Jesus to die in their place. Mack begins to realize that he is unworthy of being judge. He learns that it is not institutions or the legalistic following of rules that God wants but love and relationship. Mack enters into a sort of loving and intimate relationship with God, which grows throughout the book. At the end of his time with God in the shack, he is given the choice of going home and back into the world and spending eternity with God like he has been experiencing. Although difficult, he does the ‘right’ thing and goes back into the world for the sake of others (though still remaining in intimate relationship with God). The story end by his getting into a car wreck on the way back, almost dying, slowly recovering and he begins to patch up his earthly relationships and grow in his relationship with God.

Reviewing Various Aspects of the Book

View of God

One of the aspects most difficult for some to get over is viewing God as a big black woman. Criticizing the book on this grounds is not justified, methinks. Young is not saying that God is a woman but clearly affirms that God is neither male nor female, which is completely a correct and orthodox point (the Father actually appears as a man late in the book when Mack needs more of a ‘Father figure’). Nor does he anywhere call God, mother or depart from the idea of God as father. God appears as a ‘big black woman’ for two primary reasons: 1) Because Mack’s bad relationship with his father made it too difficult for him to be able to view God as a male and 2) Because Mack’s preconceived view of God was a old white man with a Gandalf beard. God manifests himself in a way that breaks his stereotypical view of God (rather than reinforcing it). Although some may have a problem with this, I do not. I think it is not only appropriate but also helpful. God is not male (or female). Both male and female are created in God’s image and in some aspect both genders represent something of who He is, the male no more or less than the female. Unfortunately there is one place where it sounds as if the female is closer to representing who God is and the male. Women (typically according to Young) find fulfillment in relationship and men in accomplishment. These both have their problems, the woman because she seeks it in men instead of God. This was stupid, wrong, and really hurt the former point he was trying to make. Men and women are different and reflect God differently. Its not a matter of one being a better or worse representation of who God is. Both were created differently for a purpose and both mess up differently. Oh well. This wasn’t a major point in the book; just a side issue that really ticks me off, so I’ll forgive it. See how wonderfully kind, gracious, and forgiving I am?

Trinity

Another very interesting aspect of the book was its representation of the Trinity and, though less prominent still present, the complications surrounding the incarnation: Jesus’ human and divine natures. Young assumes certain issues about the Trinity (economic trinity not hierarchical, mutual submission between the members of the godhead etc…), but on the whole does a very good job. It’s not perfect, of course no explanation or picture of the trinity will be, but he does a very good job representing the threeness of God and the oneness of God (more emphasis on the former, however, rather than the latter). As for the submission aspect, he has an agenda here, which I do not think I agree with, all, of course, based upon his understanding of relationship. I’m not going to go into length about any nitpicky stuff regarding his portrayal of the Trinity. Overall I think he did a very good job with it and the imperfections are more related to the genre (Fiction) than to any heresy or unorthodox theology.

The Father

As far as his view of the Father, I think he did a good job overall once again. The issue he is most trying to correct, methinks, is the view that the Father is the unloving, harsh, and ‘mean’ person of the Trinity. He rightly shows that the Father loves His children and that sending Jesus to the cross was a difficult (can I use that word?) thing for him as well. It was very helpful to see him portray what God loving people looked like. ‘Papa’ takes a very special interest in all of ‘Her’ children. She wants a relationship with them and desires good for them. It’s very easy to think of God’s love as a cold love thought of only in distant theological demonstrations, the decision to elect, the sending of Jesus, and the provision of forgiveness and eternal life. These are all good and indispensable. But thinking of God as loving in the way humans are expected to love, laughing with us, rejoicing with us, crying with us, taking interest in us, caring for our smallest concerns, knowing us intimately, helps to bring home what God’s love means in our daily life in ways that we can more readily understand. This was very helpful for me and corrective to some of my ‘cold theology.’

Jesus

His view of Jesus was both good and bad. Young does a good job, I think, of capturing the human and divine natures of Jesus without division, separation, etc…. He has good and solid explanations of Jesus’ miracles; they are done through the power of the Holy Spirit as a human being, not by his own power. Jesus is very Jewish and very human, which is good, but very cool, laid back, and relaxed, which is far far far too simplistic. The visions of Jesus post-resurrection are so far removed from Mack’s vision of Jesus that He is scarcely recognizable. Jesus’ glorification is not present. Paul and John’s experiences left them blind or almost dead. Mack’s Jesus is a ‘hey what’s up man, how ya doin, lets go walk on some water for fun, happy-go-lucky-drug-free-hippy kind-of-guy.’ The only thing about this Jesus that corresponds to the Jesus of the NT is that he’s Jewish! I can’t imagine that this Jesus would have ever called the Pharisees vipers or cleansed the temple with a whip. We shouldn’t be out of balance by thinking of Jesus as a harsh whip bearing man who insults everybody, but Young’s Jesus is grossly out of balance. I do not think that Young’s vision of Jesus has nearly as much correspondence to the Jesus presented in the New Testament as a picture of what Young thinks the ideal man would look like. The guy he comes up with is a very good man, but not Jesus.

The Holy Spirit

Young’s Holy Spirit is, put simply, weird. I’m not sure where most of this comes from. It is mostly neither good nor bad, affirmed or denied by Scripture. The Bible tells us very little about the Holy Spirit. But there is one very important aspect of the Holy Spirit that he misses. Sarayu (his name for the Holy Spirit in the book) does not draw attention and focus to Jesus at all, which is, methinks, the Holy Spirit’s primary role in the NT. I never saw this in The Shack and I was looking. Maybe I missed it?

Freewill

Young is obviously more Arminian (in the popular sense of the word) in his theology than I am. That’s okay; I can deal with that. I do not believe or act as if I am the sole judge of truth. I may be wrong, he may be wrong, we both may be wrong. I won’t attack these kinds of theological differences. All wrong theology has problems and will result in an improper view of God and improper praxis, so it is important, but I'm not going to get on a Calvinistic soap box and go after his 'Arminianism'. But I will take issue with some larger problems here. He uses freewill to solve all of the major problems in theodicy and it just doesn’t work. He ignores completely the problem of hell (he mentions hell but never explains or incorporates it). Ultimately God allows people to do sin even though it hurts them and God because he loves them and love does not force anyone to do anything. I’m sorry but this is very insufficient. I’m not saying that free will cannot help answer some of these questions but its much more complicated than that, whatever your theology. My parents made me go to school, did not allow me to eat small plastic objects, made me eat my vegetables, did not allow me to stay up all night, made me go to bed, and refused to allow me to do certain harmful activities because they loved me. Answer me this question, does God send people to hell forever because he loves them or are there other motivating factors? I want to make it clear that I am not questioning his theology, I'll do that elsewhere, just pointing out the deficiency of his answers. God’s love cannot be used to explain every action and aspect of God. God does get angry. God is just. God hates sin. I have found people, and I can be this way at times, who focus too much on God’s justice, hatred of sin, anger, and jealousy without a proper understanding of his grace, mercy, patience, and love. These are not to be understood as being in contradiction, or even in tension, but they must all be understood and realized. I don’t think Young does as good a job with theodicy as his fans think he does. Ultimately he falls far short, just like the rest of us do. That’s okay, but the book doesn’t leave us with the impression that this question hasn’t been answered. It acts like it has answered this question perfectly and completely. Maybe I’m inferring something here, but either way, he doesn’t even nick the surface of theodicy. His answers are insufficient. I can't imagine a godhating atheist being convinced by them.

Universalism/Salvation

There have been some people who have accused Young of universalism. This is unfair. He does not affirm universalism or the idea that all ways lead to God. Quite the opposite is, in fact, true. God calls people out of all religion, including Christianity (more on that later) into relationship with him. To paraphrase Young’s Jesus: ‘Not all roads lead to me but I will go on all roads to find you.” Young is not a universalist (as far as I can tell) he just doesn’t deal with the issue of unsaved people. That’s okay, he can’t deal with everything, but he can’t pretend that he has solved the theodicy problem without dealing with it. As for what he would say about unsaved people, I would guess that he would very much like what C. S. Lewis wrote: “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” I think I agree with that. Are they locked from the outside too? Hmmmm….

Religion/Relationship

Well Surls, if you are reading this, here we go again. Back to the ‘Christianity is not a religion it’s a relationship cliché’! Young takes this statement and runs with it. Good grief! This is where I think he has his primary problem and why he is out of balance on so many other areas. This is also where he is most valuable and helpful in so many ways.

It is helpful because he does such an incredible and awesome job of showing what this means and what it looks (or maybe will/should look) like. Most of us would agree in theory that God has a sense of humor but never think of Him laughing with us. Most of us would agree that God knows and cares about us intimately but don’t imagine that He would take interest in our music, writing, or even personality. WOW! Young does such a good job with that! It was so good and helpful and corrective to think of God that way. But I think I can peg his main problem from which all of his other problems rise. The idea of God wanting a relationship and not religion is the very center of his theology. Almost everything in the book is based on that statement. There is suffering in the world because God wants a relationship. The corrective to every wrong view of God is to understand that God wants a relationship not religion. But he misses some very important aspects of Christianity because of his unbalanced focus and, perhaps, wrong definition of what a relationship is. Young’s God wants relationship and a relationship does not have any obligations or agendas. But God does have an agenda: He is in the process of conforming us into the image of His son, is He not? And God does have obligations: reject the world and its system, turn from your sin and all your other hopes for salvation and embrace Jesus as your hope of salvation. God and Jesus also give commands in the Bible, NT included. God does love people and want a relationship with them, no problems there, but seeing Christianity as merely a relationship will create more problems than it fixes. I’m not saying that it is wrong to use this phrase but care should be taken when we use it. We have to be sure we know that people know what we mean when we say it. If it communicates: “God is not looking for people to follow a set of rules and legalisms but for people to follow Jesus and turn from their sin,” then its good, If, however, it communicates: “God is not looking for people to follow a list of rules, to live a certain way, to believe anything in particular, or to give up anything, just people who are good people who love whatever their idea of God is,” then it is indeed a very very scary and dangerous statement. Unfortunately, I think most people hear the latter concept, not the former. People who have grown up in legalistic churches and backgrounds, or have just grown up in orthodox Christianity will understand it the first way, but the less educated and those growing up in a postchristian culture will not. Unfortunately, whether he intends it or not (and I would guess he doesn’t), I think Young will be read by many as advocating the latter option.

Man Before God

I was originally intending that this would be a long section but I’m getting tired so it’ll be short. Young presents a confrontation between God and man and it seems more than relevant to compare this confrontation with other God-human confrontations found in the Bible and compare them. At first glance, they seem nothing alike. We read about Paul’s confrontation with Jesus on the road to Damascus, John’s vision of Christ in Revelation, Isaiah’s vision of God and His throne, Moses’ dealings with God on Sinai and in the Wilderness, and Ezekiel’s vision of the throne, and there seems very very little to find that corresponds. But the most relevant comparison would not be any of these but God’s meeting with Job. Both are presented with horrific tragedy, both feel that God is unfair, and both meet God face to face. I’ll just make two points of comparison here and then move on to the conclusion.
The more obvious point is the way God is presented and the response this produces in Job. God is awesome, awful, and fearful and Job shuts up. When Job sees God face to face he is not able to voice his complaints. He has nothing to say but ‘I repent’ and ‘I’m putting my hand over my mouth’. God asks Job ‘who are you puny man’, he doesn’t plant a garden with him or cook him dinner. In this there is a very great and important difference. When man is confronted with the Almighty God he shuts up. Mack didn’t.

The less obvious point is where Young is good. In neither Job nor The Shack does God really explain Himself. In The Shack, Mack learns a lot about God but does not learn why Missy had to die. Mack’s answer is not found in God explaining Himself but itn seeing and knowing God. This is exactly the answer that Job receives. God does not explain Himself in Job. Throughout the whole book Job asks myriads of questions. How many does God answer? None. Not a single cotton picking one. God does not need nor is He obligated to answer man’s questions. But God did answer Job in Himself. When Job saw God he saw something of who he was before God and could do or say nothing. He affirms that he spoke without knowledge, things that he didn’t understand. That, ultimately is what Mack’s answer is: ‘These are things you can’t understand, instead of being angry, know me better and trust me.’

Towards Something of a Conclusion

Well this is really long and it’s really late (or early, depending upon your perspective) so this needs to be wrapped up. I am very glad to have read The Shack. It helped me think more deeply about what it means that God loves me and wants to be in relationship with me. It helped give me a better idea of what God is (perhaps) like in relationship with Himself. Most importantly it made me think about God and yearn to know Him better. For that I am grateful and appreciative.

I am also grateful for an enjoyable read. If more books in the Christian Fiction genre were this thought provoking and well written I would, perhaps, hang out there more often. Let’s hope this starts a trend of more theologically aware and mentally stimulating writing in a mostly barren desert of shallow theology and literary swill.

But I cannot recommend this book to everyone. I wish I could. I can and will recommend it to some people who are educated and/or discerning enough to be able to glean value without swallowing the whole thing, but I couldn’t stand up in the pulpit and tell people to read it.

Some people will be irked at me for this review. They’ll tell me that I have to remember the genre, it’s fictional, it’s an allegory. You can’t read it like a theological treatise. True. But I can’t help but ask what effect this will have on people’s view of God. Will it help them better understand their trials and sufferings? Will it help them better understand God? Will it help them better understand who He is, what He’s like and what He demands (and that is the right word, demands)? Overall I think for the average pew-sitter it will move them further away from understanding the God of the Bible. This is unfortunate because there are some very good things in this book that could really help people think about God in ways that they haven’t before but should. It could really help people understand what it means that God loves them and wants a relationship with them. It might even be able to help them understand things like the Trinity better. But at what cost? For the mature and stable Christian, this is a good read if read wisely. For the pastor or theologian it is, perhaps, an essential read given the popularity and influence this book will likely command. But there are far too many people out there who do not seem to be able to think critically when it comes to their faith and spirituality. These people are not only the people who are most likely to be harmed by reading it, but probably the most likely to like it. The people who are able to derive the most benefit from it, more academic-unemotional-serious-logical types will probably not like it or read it, and they probably should. But if you want to find something suitable for everyone to read, give them Job. It does a better job (hehehe). You may, somewhat fairly, object that it is harder for most people to follow. Write a good paraphrase then! Do a Bible Study, write a book, preach a sermon… I don’t know, do something! You figure it out.

I would very much like to hear your feedback on the Shack and my review. Let’s dialogue. I would really like to hear Nate and Austin’s opinion, especially in light of Austin’s previous blog about the term ‘religion’. This book does, regardless of whatever else it does, make you think and makes for great theological dialogue.

Responding to James Holden's Questions

This post's purpose is respond to James' questions left as a reply to my previous blog entry. I did read The Shack while I was in Alaska and will have a review of it up very soon, maybe even tonight.

I said that I wasn't looking to give answers in my last blog but receive answers. That was true. That does not mean that I didn't have answers to my own questions, but only that I am not satisfied with them. Bob Dylan wasn't really the point, which you all probably realized, nor did he really spark my questions as much as my own personal experiences did. Thanks James for your reply and you rightly discerned the influence my own experiences had upon my questions. The main reason I wanted to start blogging was for dialogue so I am grateful for the questions you asked. I hope I can allay your fears a bit. I am not placing my experiences on the level of the Scriptures. Experiences are too flighty and too easily misinterpreted to be the basis of truth. I agree with you that Scripture is true and reliable (and probably agree that there is absolute truth which is found in the Bible, you'd have to define 'absolute truth' for me though. I've always found it to be a very ambiguous term for such an absolute statement!).

But even if experience is an unreliable source of truth, it is an essential source for questions and questions are an essential tool of any serious thinker. And though the Bible is true, reliable, and revelation from God, it does not answer all of our questions. And many of the questions that it does answer are not answered clearly. This is not to find fault with the Bible, but with us humans who distort and misunderstand things all of the time. Even if we say, as I would, that Scripture is sufficient, that is not to say that we should cease to ask questions. If you do, you will ultimately rely upon your own understanding and presuppositions as your source of truth, not the Bible, because you will have no real way to analyze what you read or whatever curve ball life throws at you.

So let's get to James' questions,


So without regarding my experiences or the questions my experience asks I will attempt answers at your questions, on the basis of my theology alone - as best as I can.

1) According to the Bible, what saves a person?

Important question though I don't like the wording. I would answer simply that God saves someone. That's not what you are looking for. You want me to say believing in Jesus, or turning from sin or something along those lines, but really these do not save you. God saves you. Now on what basis does God save you? Isn't it on the basis of his own will? He saves you because he wants to? But here we run into some issues because I believe, based upon my debatable interpretation of Scripture, that God desires the salvation of all. We could go the Piper route and talk about God's differing wills, but, to be quite honest, that sounds ridiculous to me. Ultimately we cannot, methinks, really understand this from God's perspective. So what does God require of us if we wish to be 'saved' (I don't like that word...)? Repentance. Turning from your sin, the world system, and any other hope of salvation and follow Christ. This includes believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead, but believing these facts are not what save you, only prerequisites to really trusting in Jesus to save you.

2) According to the Bible, what keeps a person saved?

The Holy Spirit does. I do not believe that someone is saved forever because they believe in Jesus, no matter what happens afterward. Rather, the Holy Spirit preserves the elect (whatever that means).

3. What does it mean to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?

I'll change the translation a bit to "sealed by the promised Holy Spirit". What does this mean? I'm not sure I can answer this fully, but I'll begin an answer anyway. The seal indicates ownership and, as 1:14 indicates, something of a preview or guarantee of our future inheritance. The real question is who receives this seal? The answer is obvious (I think): the elect. But who are the elect? From our perspective, I don't think that we can answer this.

4. What does Romans have to say about a person's life after he is saved?

Since I don't believe that Romans 7 refers to believers, I'll have to just say that they sound pretty darn near perfect.

5. Was Judas (a man who outwardly must have displayed some measure of faith) a true believer? I assume he gave up a lot to follow Jesus for three years.

Obviously not. But did he really display as much faith as we think? We are told little, but John knew that he stole from the money purse. He may not have seemed that good of a guy. We don't really know, we are told very very little.

6. What about the Pope or mother Theresa?

I think it is very possible that either are/were saved but I don't know. Even if I disagree with their theology, I recognize that it is not correct theology that saves a person (see James 2) but God saves a person. I can't answer this question from a human perspective either because I don't know their hearts. I'm more optimistic about Mother Theresa than I am about the average Baptist.

7. Why is it written, "They went out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19)?"

Because those false teachers that left the faith were never truly believers. But here's a better and more relevant question that I cannot answer, maybe you can: Did they know that they were not truly believers? Does anyone?

8. What did Paul mean when he rebuked the Galatians in chapter 3 for thinking that they needed to do something to keep their salvation?

That they were wrong to pervert the gospel by thinking that they had to follow the OTL in order to be saved.

---

I wasn't advocating works salvation in my last blog. Nor was I questioning the Scriptures. I hope it didn't sound that way. I was merely asking questions that were prompted by, yes, my experiences that do not seem to be clearly answered by Scripture. Here's my question in a nutshell James: Can someone ever really know that they are indeed a true believer? If the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, as you reminded us, how do we know that we aren't deceiving ourselves into thinking that our faith is genuine? If there are those who display, outwardly, evidence that their faith is sincere, yet they fall away, how do we test it? Works, it seems, is an inadequate test.

So for any of you who may have misinterpreted my last post's underlying question here it is more concretely: Can we ever be really assured of our salvation? Does the phrase 'assurance of salvation' even make sense?

Responses, Explanations, and Apologies

Preliminary Stuff (you don't really have to read this)
I really like the dialogue that Nate, Austin, and I have going on our blogs. It's very helpful to be able to interact with others' ideas and receive feedback for your own. I also appreciate the feedback I received from others. Thanks Brenda for your comments. They were helpful. Thanks for those of you who emailed me reactions to my novel attempt at a novel. According to my facebook blog network, I have twenty something readers. If there are really over twenty people reading this thing, shame on most of you! The purpose of this blog is conversation. I want to learn from our interactions. If you read my blog without giving me feedback you're cheating!!! But I'll forgive you, for now.

A quick and unnecessary apology
My 'Hell-pful Answers' to my 'Hellish Questions' were completely unhelpful. I know this. These are some questions that I am intending on considering in the near future. I just began by trying to raise some questions to get us thinking. My one sentence 'answers' were not intended to settle the question or explain the issue.

Brenda and Keith,
I have tried to subscribe to your blogs but for some reason I get an error message every time I try. I don't know why that is. Any ideas?
All right enough of that....

Engaging with my Blogging Buddies, you have to read this...
Nate's blog has two new posts since my last interaction with it. His first is a reflection upon the Mystery of God. The book of Job, which he mentions, has rocked my view of God. The essence of God's reply to Job is 'who are you puny little man to question me?' God is so much greater, so much wiser, so beyond our understanding that any attempt to fully comprehend Him is doomed to failure. The universe is not only beautiful and glorious, but complex and so huge that we will probably never know how big it really is. How many stars are there? The puniness of man is indeed a humbling thought. Yet God wants us puny humans to know Him. Eternally growing in our knowledge of God will indeed be a highlight of the eternal state.

Puniness brings me to Nate's second post. Most all of us will be very small players on this world's stage. I may sometimes dream of greatness, but in all likelihood, the vast majority of people on this planet will never even know I existed. The willingness to be a small player in God's plan requires a lot of humility. But humility is the most important attitude for us as we approach God. The proud may be applauded and praised by this world, but God delights to use puny and insignificant people. The willingness to submit to this is vital if we truly want to be used by God.

Austin's blog asked for more definitions! May he be thirsty in battle!!! What does spiritual mean? C'mon SURLSY!!! You're killing me man! It means whatever you want it to mean! Haven't you been paying attention? We're postmoderns now! Tell me what it means to you and I'll tell you what it means to me. This interchange is not for the purpose of debate. Whatever works for you is fine, just respect my truth please.
Okay just joking - kind of. If you are talking to an average joe, I think you'll find that they mean different things by 'spiritual' than the Bible means or we seminarians mean. I haven't seen the negative connotation that Heather and Drew are talking about (see comments under Surls' post). I think that spiritual usually relates to one's 'inner self'. Someone who is spiritual is someone who is in touch with himself, nature, God, or whatever. Someone who is spiritual is someone who believes in things besides what you can see. I think it has very little relation to objective truth. It's not truth that you can see but truth that you feel. It's not truth that you persuade others to, you just experience it for yourself. Its not something that can be proved, only felt and experienced.
I do not think we should use the word 'spiritual' without making sure that others know what we mean. I think that the concept is very confusing and murky to most people.
Scriptural definition? Too difficult for me to do quickly. How's this? Spirit is immaterial substance. God is nonphysical. Spiritual is that related to the nonphysical or to the Holy Spirit. But we must not divorce the spiritual and the physical worlds. What we do in the body physically is related to our 'spiritual lives'. This is crappy but I think its the general idea. What do you think Surlsy?

The picture by the way is postmodern art. Tell me what it means to you....

Responding to my Reading with my Reactions to my blogging brothers

Some of you may read my blog and not realize the reason I started this thing to begin with. This started as an idea between Nate Duriga, Austin Surls, and myself as a way of dialoguing and sharing ideas about Theology and the Bible. Everyone else is MORE than welcome to join in on the dialogue. Austin invited several of his old Masters buddies to join in and there is always room for more. As this blogging community grows this will become more difficult, but for now I am going to react to each of their blogs once a week (on Sunday) and post my thoughts on their thoughts here. So without further chit chat, here are my responses to their latest blogs.

Nate's last few blogs have focused much on the persecution of Christians around the world and the effect our political decisions have upon world hunger. These reminders are good for us and much appreciated. Life is so easy for us here and apathy comes very naturally. If our friends and family were being killed or were starving to death (not to mention if WE were) it would matter much more to us. We would probably more readily make sacrifices for their well-being. But this is very bad theology. These are our brothers and sisters! This family called the church is more important than the physical family into which we were born. Those relationships are temporary. The relationship we have with each other through Jesus Christ is everlasting. We have do not have more obligation to our American brothers than we do to our African brothers. Ignorance and apathy are normal and easy but unacceptable.

Austin Surls' blog asks the question: "How should we use the word "religion"" This is a very good question and it kind of bothers me as well. (btw the following is basically the same as I posted under the comment section of his post, you dont have to read both!)My pastor uses the phrase all the time: "Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship." But is that really true? And what is religion? And what do people HEAR when you say religion? The second question is probably the most important and the most difficult. I think Christianity is actually a religion. James says "...pure and undefiled religion before God is this..." Paul on Mars Hill doesn't try and argue that Christianity is in a different category than their false gods but answers their unanswered questions and that the true God is completely different 'god' and with different expectations than they would have believed. But I think that the difficulty is understanding what people in your coffee shop think of when they think of religion. I think people think of religion as not having any correspondence to truth or reality. Its just an feel good thing. It doesn't demand or require anything of you. So if saying that Christianity is a religion communicates something different than what Christianity really is, should we use the term? Hmmm... But is Christianity only a relationship? And what do people hear when you say that? Unfortunately I think that we will run into the same issues. What does it mean to say you have a relationship with God (for your hearers)? I don't think this communicates what you want it to mean either. Does worldview do better? I'm not sure it's perfect because it doesn't communicate the obligations that a relationship with God requires. Ultimately I'm not sure I'm helping you a lot. Can you say that you have a relationship with God that changes the way you view the world? Or is that too long... and still incomplete? I'll just say that I don't think that defining Christianity as a relationship with God is any better (and maybe worse) than calling it a religion.

As more blogs join our blogging community I'll respond to their thoughts as well. I enjoy this dialogue! Thanks Nate for your response. I wish I knew how to exactly draw lines on applying these issues without spiraling into legalism. So hard!

Richey