Blog Archives

Eight great ways to foster community at your church!

Any ideas of your own?  Add them to the list!

Grow up, Peter Pan! (Part 1 of 3)

Peter PanIf you’ve ever heard or read anything by Mark Driscoll, you’ll immediately understand why he is one of the most controversial preachers in the church today.  He is very firm on his doctrine and is very blunt—often to the point of being crass—in expressing his convictions.  Recently, Driscoll traveled to Australia and criticized the church there (at their invitation).  One of the most jarring criticisms was of the young men; he told them to grow up, get involved in the church, get married, start families, etc.  Driscoll refers to young men who don’t do these things as “Peter Pans.”

Now, let’s set aside Driscoll himself and talk about what it means to be a “Peter Pan.”  It’s terrific imagery because:

  • Peter Pan tries to avoid growing up and taking responsibility for the things grown-ups should take responsibility for.
  • Peter Pan lives off in a fantasy world instead of dealing with the problems of the real world.

Guys, does that sound like you?  It sure as heck sounds like me.  It’s remarkable—and disconcerting—how much of the sin in my life falls under this heading.  But perhaps you’re not convinced.  I want to help us all out here by coming up with a (non-exhaustive) list of signs that indicate how you and I may be Peter Pan.  Many of these I gathered from looking in the mirror, while a few I gathered from observing other young men around my own age (these are geared toward guys in their college years or 20s).  I decided to err on the side of being harsh because I’d rather overstate my case than understate it.

You might be Peter Pan if…

  • You spend hours in front of the TV set each day—watching TV or movies or playing video games.
  • You spend hours on your computer each day surfing the Internet aimlessly.
  • You prefer spending time at the TV or computer over actually interacting with the people around you.
  • You always have your iPod earbuds in your ears, even for two-minute walks between classes.  You can’t stand the thought of silence (the horror of it!).
  • You’d rather listen to your music than talk to people.
  • You avoid talking to people you don’t know.  You just hang around your own cozy little circle of friends and never show interest in anyone new.
  • You typically keep your bedroom door closed and your window blinds shut, blocking out the outside world.
  • You use the fact that you’re an introvert as an excuse to avoid other people.  (Sorry, introverts—I’m one, too, and I know this is a crap excuse.)

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You catch yourself daydreaming frequently—in fact, most of your internal reflections are daydreams.
  • You live your live vicariously through your daydreams.
  • You let your daydreams become a substitute for real relationships and real action.
  • You don’t do things you know are right, and you’re not willing to take risks because you know what will happen if you do; somehow, you have attained God’s knowledge of the future, O wisest of sages.

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You don’t get your homework done until the last minute (if at all) and somehow convince yourself that it will take care of itself without you having to lift a finger.
  • You don’t go to bed on time because it’s too much work to get off your butt and get ready for bed.
  • You don’t clean up after yourself because you’re lazy and besides, your roommates will do it for you, just like your mommy used to.
  • You slack off on laundry, grocery store trips, scheduling doctor’s appointments, or anything that will take effort, because it’s just too hard.
  • You waste time at work on one frivolous distraction after another (such as reading this blog) instead of actually doing work.
  • You don’t keep track of your finances because you know that daddy will always be around to bail you out.
  • You whine and complain about any inconvenience (including inconvenient people) that God would dare bring across your path.

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You really like a young woman but you’re too chicken to ask her out.  You’d rather spend your nights sleeplessly pining after her until she turns into an idol.
  • You have every intention of staying single for reasons other than that it will free you up to serve the Lord more effectively (1 Corinthians 7:32).
  • You think of a wife as being a “ball and chain” that will keep you from continuing in your carefree, selfish, indulgent lifestyle.
  • You’re doing nothing—spiritually or financially—to prepare yourself for marriage and leading a family.
  • You’re not actively looking for women whom you’d be interested in marrying.
  • You don’t seek advice from older people on dating, marriage, and being a father.  You figure you’ll just cross that bridge when you come to it.  (It can’t be that hard, right?  And it can’t possibly be as important as my studies!)
  • You haven’t thought through biblical principles that would help you know how to go about dating/courting a young woman.  You’re foolish enough to believe that because the Bible doesn’t use the word dating, God has nothing to say on the subject and you can follow what all your friends are doing.
  • You let daydreams of marriage and sex substitute for the real thing.  Imagining these things is a lot easier than actually winning over a woman’s heart, so you just stick with what you’re good at.
  • You get sexual gratification from pornography, which is perfect for a lazy bum who isn’t willing to handle the responsibilities of leadership and service that are part of the package of sex within marriage.
  • You use sexual fantasy as a narcotic to escape the pain of the real world.
  • You want a girlfriend because you desperately need someone to love you.  You’re needy and clingy.  You fear other people rather than the Lord.
  • You have a girlfriend, and you desperately need her to love you.  You’re needy and clingy.  You fear her rather than the Lord.

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You are not actively serving in a local church like God has insisted that you do (1 Corinthians 12).  You only hang around your buddies in the college ministry.
  • You don’t know anyone at your church who is more than four years older than you.
  • You don’t seek out friendships with older men.  You make no effort to listen and learn from older men.
  • You don’t get enough sleep during the week, and especially Saturday night, so you aren’t alert during the sermon to hear the things God wants to teach you.
  • You’ve never taken time to leaf through your church’s hymnal and marvel at the rich doctrine found in the hymns inside (assuming your church uses a hymnal).
  • You haven’t been baptized and you’ve never really put much thought into it.
  • You skip the Lord’s Supper at Family Gathering service (KSBC only) and think it’s no big deal because being able to put off your homework until Sunday night is more important to you.  Never mind that Jesus told you to do do it in memory of him.
  • You don’t care about church membership.  It’s something you’ll get to one day, maybe, if you feel like it.
  • You care more about the Indianapolis Colts (or other local sports team) than you do about your church, its growth, and the people in it.

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You never spend more than two minutes in prayer, and your prayers sound like a boring grocery list of requests.  You never do anything that would force you to depend on God in prayer.
  • You never pray together with other believers.
  • You never pray for anyone except yourself.
  • You don’t read your Bible for wisdom because you don’t need its wisdom to know how to sit on the couch and watch TV all day, or to spend all day studying for your classes.  You’re totally adequate for these things, so you’ll stick with what you’re good at instead of, you know, actually trusting and obeying God.
  • You don’t memorize scripture because it’s “too hard.”  No, it’s not.
  • You never share the gospel with anyone because you’re too afraid of what people will think of you.  If only that perfect opportunity would just fall into your lap…

…and you might be Peter Pan if…

  • You feel more comfortable referring to yourself as a “guy” rather than a “man.”
  • Other people feel more comfortable referring to you as a “guy” rather than a “man.”
  • People don’t come to you for advice and help for difficult situations in their lives because they know that all you’re good for is your MP3 collection or your knowledge of sports trivia or your knack for acing engineering exams.

Most of these are sins of omission rather than sins of commission.  Many of the “bad” things mentioned aren’t bad in and of themselves (TV, music, sports, studies, etc.).  They’re bad because they replace something that should not be omitted.  Being a Peter Pan is all about sins of omission.

So we’ve identified some of the symptoms, but what is the cancer underlying all these problems?  What is behind this menagerie of sins?  Stay tuned for the sequel—part two out of three.

Also, if you can think of more signs of a Peter Pan, I’d love to read what you have to say.  A woman’s perspective on these would be helpful, too!  So please feel welcome to leave comments.

Why is The Shack so successful?

The ShackAfter posting a one-sentence review of The Shack last Sunday, I followed up on Wednesday with a critique of William P. Young’s perspective on authority which he lays out in the book.  Today, I want to end with a few thoughts on why I think The Shack has become so popular and why it has had such a powerful effect on many who read it.  While this is not an exhaustive list, here are seven reasons why I think this book has enjoyed such great success:

1.  Story time

The Shack is a story.  Narrative—fiction or non-fiction—is a very powerful means of communication, and it is very effective at getting across an agenda.  We could turn to the Bible itself as a prime example of this; throughout much of the Bible, theology is given legs through pictures of God actually at work through the course of history.  I have read several people who try to deflect criticism from The Shack by appealing to its nature as a fictional work, but even fiction can have an agenda (good or bad), and this book certainly does.  Young’s writing style varies from passable to cringe-worthy (the “gilt edges”/“guilt edges” pun about the Bible from p. 66 comes to mind); his chapter titles are incredibly corny; he can’t seem to decide whether or not to give God the Father a consistent sassy-black-woman accent.  Yet the fact remains that the story is at times emotionally moving, and Young is just good enough as a narrator not to get in the way of what he is narrating.

2.  God the mouthpiece

Young’s primary means of revelation is through the members of the Trinity.  Nearly all of the important teaching comes from the mouths of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  The result is that these three become Young’s spokesmen (or spokeswomen?).  As his mouthpieces, they say what he wants them to say.  In a sense, this is an inversion of the biblical pattern where the authors of scripture became God’s spokesmen, saying what he wanted them to say.  Now, The Shack is meant to be read as fiction; however, there is a certain air of authority when it is God himself saying the things Young wants us to believe.

3.  Mack the claqueur

Lest I appear more well-cultured than I really am, I’ll admit that I didn’t know what a claqueur was until last night.  I actually found out while looking at the Wikipedia entry for “laugh track.”  And that’s one of the major roles of Mack’s character—to provide the response to the Trinity’s teaching that Young wants the audience to have.  It is remarkable how many times, after a member of the Godhead finishes pontificating on a topic, that Mack is said to feel like he wants to laugh and cry at the same time, or is said to feel a great burden lifted from his shoulders, or is said to feel excited and bewildered.  Mack’s emotional responses are a sort of hint that Young provides us as readers; they are a subtle suggestion that we, too, should be feeling the same way, just like laugh tracks in sitcoms inform the audience that a joke has been told and that it is funny (unless the sitcom is That ’70s Show or Friends).

4.  Emotional buzz

I’m not sure whether to be comforted or not by the fact that many people don’t seem to be reading The Shack for theology.  I find it comforting because it means that much of the false doctrine taught in this book will be ignored.  But I find it disconcerting because it means that these people are not reading this book to know God more.  Anyone who is seeking to know God more is seeking good theology (the knowledge of God).  Rather than striving for “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:8), many Christians are content to use books like this as a cheap drug, a means to getting an emotional buzz—a pseudo-spiritual “high”—that will get them through tough times.  The bad news is that while the God of The Shack may make them feel better for a little while, the “high” won’t last because Young’s God is so meager in comparison to the God of the Bible.

5.  Itching ears

There are others who are reading this book to know God more, and they are swallowing Young’s teaching hook, line, and sinker.  In my initial review, I referred to his God as “a Trinity invented by a 21st-century American.”  I doubt that this book would appeal to people outside of a modern Western audience.  It is grounded so firmly in the perceived needs and worldview of our culture.  We don’t want authority; we don’t want structure; we don’t want a sovereign God.  We want relationship without responsibility and blessing without being broken.  We want an idol carved out of God, where all his “rough edges” are sanded off and a newer, harmless deity is made for us to worship.  The Shack offers us this version of God, and it is no surprise that it has become so popular.  Paul warned Timothy that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

6.  A vein of truth

Despite all these failures, The Shack does teach a lot of true things about God.  It does portray God as caring for his people, as a God of unconditional love, as a God who isn’t a tyrant over his own.  It reminds us that he is immanent—God with us.  It admits that we live in a broken world, full of anguish, sorrow, and hurt.  And it tells us that God wants to restore his creation to the full beauty and harmony that it was meant to display.

7.  The salt has lost its saltiness

Finally, let me be blunt.  This book should not have been written.  By this, I mean that the above truths should be so obvious to people within the church that they do not need a fatally flawed book such as The Shack to remind them.  Moreover, people outside the church should see the love of God manifested in his people and their love for one another (John 13:35).  You and I—we have failed to show others the one true God by the way we conduct our lives.

As long as we refuse to give ourselves up as living sacrifices to God, as long as we hold ourselves back, we will no longer be shining “as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15).  Let us live in such a way that no one around us is interested in reading The Shack because they see in us something resembling the true God.  It is certainly our responsibility to refute false doctrine (Titus 1:9).  But above all, let us remember Jesus’ commandment:  “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Authority in The Shack

The ShackOn Sunday, I posted a one-sentence review of The Shack and promised to return with a couple more posts:  the first critiquing its teaching on authority, and the second examining why it seems to be so popular and emotionally powerful.

So…the first.  If you haven’t read Gerald Hiestand’s review, do that first; then come back here.  Before I had read The Shack, I read his review, and it sounded over-the-top to me.  After reading the book, I’m convinced that, far from exaggerating the problem, Hiestand has put his finger on the single most dangerous theme of the book—that authority is a human construct brought about by the Fall, that God considers it “ghastly” (p. 122), and that it is incompatible with true relationship.  Though there are many serious errors in the book, this is one that Young relentlessly pursues throughout the course of his story.  He lays it all out explicitly on pp. 121-124 in a conversation among Mack and the members of the Trinity.  During the course of the dialogue, Jesus explains:

Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it.  You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power.  Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.

One possible response to this is to engage in an imagined philosophical debate with Young over whether authority or hierarchy really is incompatible with relationship.  Instead, I simply want to appeal to God himself—to the words given to us by God, not merely by William P. Young.  The true God reveals himself primarily through the holy and precious scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15).  The inherent goodness of God’s authority is stunningly obvious throughout the pages of the Bible.  The first recorded words of God to man reflect his authority in an unbroken, sinless love relationship with his creature; in a rapid series of commands, he tells the man and the woman, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion…” (Genesis 1:28).  That last one, especially, reminds us that man was created as part of a hierarchy, as God’s vice-regent over the creation.  Throughout the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2, prior to the Fall, God commands all things into being, and he commands Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16).  Throughout the rest of the Bible he issues commands and decrees, and one day he will return to rule the nations “with a rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15).  The one true God is not afraid of authority; he is not afraid to reign.

Because Young is familiar with the Bible, he can’t help but slip back into hierarchical terminology when referring to God, describing Jesus as “Lord of Creation” (p. 176) and “king of the universe” (p. 216).  But otherwise, he’s pretty consistent in applying this principle because he proceeds to denigrate the authority of the Bible, of the church, and of men.

The Bible

The only time Young mentions the Bible with more than a passing reference is when he attempts to devalue it.  This takes place on pp. 65-66, where he portrays it as God’s words “reduced to paper.”  It is not “overt” or “direct” communication by God.  It is “moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects…the intelligentsia.”  It limits God:  “No one wanted God in a box, just in a book.”

While Young uses biblical terminology throughout much of the book, he feels free to supplement the teachings of scripture with his own ideas about God, even going so far as to contradict the Bible if necessary to suit his agenda (as we have already seen).  He does not respect the authority of scripture as Jesus Christ did (Matthew 5:17-19).  He does not treasure its words as the psalmist did (Psalm 119).

The Church

Once again, every mention of the church as an institution is negative.  Using Jesus as his spokesman, Young explains that the church “is all about people and life is all about relationships” (p. 178).  It’s hard to argue with that…until we remember that to him, relationships are incompatible with authority.  Young’s Jesus insists, “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will” (p. 179).  This is utterly absurd; Christ did institute his church.  He gave it the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper and baptism.  He established procedures for church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20).  His apostles, sent with his authority, affirmed the offices of elder and deacon (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9).  They laid out rules and guidelines for proper conduct in the church (1 Corinthians 14) and care for the widows (1 Timothy 5:3-16), among other things.  The Holy Spirit equipped the people of the church with spiritual gifts “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7)—including the gifts of leadership (Romans 12:8) and administration (1 Corinthians 12:28)!

If the church—local and universal—is not an institution, I don’t know what is.  Institutions are not inherently bad; in keeping with his response to the concept of authority itself, Young is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Just because the church can be twisted and imperfect doesn’t mean that structure and hierarchy are themselves evil.  In the church, they are the structure on which relationships grow and flourish.

Masculinity

Hiestand came down hard on this one, and after reading the book, I understand why.  Let’s set aside the jarring fact that God the Father appears as a woman (Young insists on veering from the almost exclusively male depiction of God in the Bible).  Beyond that, the author undermines male headship and strongly implies that women are superior to men.  As a result of pitting relationship against authority, Young ends up rightly affirming feminine virtues while criticizing a caricature of masculine virtues.  His Jesus explains to Mack, “Like most men you find what you think of as fulfillment in your achievements, and Nan [Mack's wife], like most women, find [sic] it in relationships.  It’s more naturally her language” (p. 146).  It’s not hard to figure out where this is leading.  Young spends the entire book rejoicing in relationships, so of course women, who are apparently better than men at this, end up being naturally superior to men.

Young’s Jesus goes on to say, “The world, in many ways, would be a much calmer and gentler place if women ruled.  There would have been far fewer children sacrificed to the gods of greed and power” (p. 148).  When Mack speculates that perhaps it would have been better if women were given the role of authority, Jesus responds, “Better, maybe, but it still wouldn’t have been enough.”  Then he goes on to insist that power in human hands always corrupts and is inherently bad.  So the damage has been done to masculinity; perhaps the world wouldn’t be a perfect place if women were in charge, but it would be better.

The Shack is all about a love relationship.  This would be a great thing if Young left room for other perspectives offered by the Bible, which talks about our spiritual journey as fearing the Lord (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), as a sacrifice to God (Philippians 2:17), as slavery to a new master (Romans 6:15-19), as a battle “against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12; tellingly, The Shack never once mentions the devil or demonic forces).  But rather than leaving room for these and many other perspectives, he excludes them.

God has and will use The Shack to remind people that he loves them and longs for a deeper relationship with them.  For that, I praise God and marvel at his use of flawed instruments to accomplish his perfect will.  Yet I am afraid that this book will not only lead people astray with blatantly false teaching but encourage people to become fatally unbalanced in their understanding of masculinity, of the church, of the Bible, and ultimately of God himself.

Bride and Bridesmaids: Church and Parachurch on Campus (Part 4 of 4)

For the fourth and final part of our series on the roles of the local church and parachurch on a college campus, my goal is to address our need to respond to the biblical emphasis on local church ministry.  I’ll keep it short, so if you have any other thoughts, feel free to leave a comment.

  • For local churches, outreach to nearby campuses should be a higher priority.  Don’t be passive about it!  Investigate ways to make your church more “college-friendly,” such as offering rides to campus or having church families “adopt” college students.  Also, be sure to educate the young people in your church before they head off to college…not only through teaching, but by expecting participation in the life of the church and encouraging relationships with adults.
  • For parachurch organizations, local church involvement needs to be emphasized.  The goal of your organization should be to funnel students into a local church.  If your students are leaving you in favor of deeper church involvement, that’s a good thing.  Encourage it.
  • Students should make local church involvement a priority.  It should rank as a higher priority than parachurch involvement.  If you’re heavily involved in Cru but your only involvement in church is to show up on Sundays, you’ve got it upside down.  Reverse your priorities and start obeying God.  (Caveat:  if there are no solid, Bible-preaching, gospel-centered local churches, I’d rather have you be heavily involved in a parachurch organization that is grounded in truth.)

A couple of years ago, I wouldn’t have been so bold as to encourage students to leave parachurch ministries in favor of a local church.  I would have thought of the two merely as different options among a smorgasbord of perfectly good alternatives.  But as time goes on, and as I study scriptures to see the church in action, and then see the effect my church has on me, I feel more and more comfortable saying that every student needs a church—not just a place to show up on Sunday, but a place to grow one’s roots deep.  The church is the bride; the parachurch is the bridesmaid.  We don’t go to weddings to marvel at the bridesmaids but to focus on the bride.  So let’s make sure that we’re not neglecting the local churches that Jesus Christ came to establish.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.