Peter Witkowski Apologetics

The Shack: A Dangerous Journey For Evangelicals

the-shackThe Shack is a beautiful story of redemption. It is mysteriously beautiful journey that seeks to explain the relationship between God, humanity, and evil. And as we see the likable, rugged Mack grow in his understanding of God, we cannot help but see ourselves in his story. And because The Shack is such an effective literary devise, the book and now movie could prove to be extremely dangerous.

The doctrines that Christians would readily balk at if seen in cold text books can often slip by unnoticed when dressed in the beauties of a compelling narrative. And though The Shack protests against being classified as a theological work, it is just that. We must see it as such. If we do not, we will find our worldview being reshaped. As Dr. Albert Mohler said a few years ago,

In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied.

The same can be said of the movie as well. For us to be discerning  Christians, we must take this narrative back to the best narrative, the gospel. We must examine The Shack’s theology. We must see if the God of the Bible and the God of The Shack are the same.

Is the Shack True?

At first glance, the answer appears to be yes. The author barrows heavily from the language of conservative Christendom, encouraging us to enter into the dialogue with an open mind in an attempt to escape the false notions of God that we have created. But despite his claims to the contrary,  Paul Young commits the very crime his book seeks to overcome. He has recreated God, by taking, “the best version of you that you can think of.”

And we know this because, he portrays God the Father as both a “large, beaming African American woman” and as a “dignified, older, wiry [man with] sliver-white hair pulled back into a ponytail.” The Holy Spirit is described as wiry-looking “Asian woman.” The very descriptions of God defies God’s commands. Young has placed his own human into God’s nature. In so doing, Young has clearly violated the command of Exodus 20:4 which says:

 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

By making God the Father and the Holy Spirit appear as people, Young has blasphemed the very God he claims to be representing. And as Octavia Spencer, Graham Greene and Sumire Matsubara seek to represent the God of the universe on the big screen, they will fall infinitely short of the biblical descriptions of the Father and Holy Spirit. And, they cannot help themselves. No created being can capture the grandeur, holiness, wisdom, purity, justice, grace, mercy, goodness, and truth of the God of the universe who set the whole world in motion and who sent his son to redeem the lost. Regardless of their talent, no actress or actor can authentically role-play God. It is antithetical to their nature.

Now, the actors’ very inability to accurately represent God is the very thing that will make the book and the movie so appealing.  Humans can easily relate to the trinity that resembles them. But in making God more relatable, likable, and personal, Young’s narrative fails to capture the God of the universe that humanity desperately needs to understand. Young promises hope but delivers only confusion.

And because Young’s framework for understanding God exists apart from the ‘book,’ the God of The Shack advances many unbiblical doctrines, heresy.

First, Papa claims that there is no hierarchy in the trinity. The trinity is said to exists in a “circle of relationship, not a chain of command.” Yet in John 8, 14, and 16, a hierarchy is present. Jesus does the will of the Father, and the Holy Spirit comes to make much of Christ. Remember Jesus’ words:

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13).

Since Young misunderstands the nature of the trinity, he cannot help but misrepresents the nature of human relationships, advocating for the abolition of the distinctive roles of marriage. According to Jesus of The Shack, God never wanted women to find their security in men and men to find the joy in their work. God wants relationships to exist structures that do not demand respect. God wants, “male and female to be counterparts, face-to-face equals.” Surprisingly, the Jesus of The Shack appears to have forgotten about the words he spoke in Genesis 2.

The God of the Shack seems to also have forgotten about the biblical doctrine of salvation. Instead of coming to pay for the sins of the world, Jesus comes to reconcile the whole world to God by removing pain, the darkness that keeps us from seeing God. According to Papa, God has no, “need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my purpose to cure it.” Sin is not our ultimate problem. Lack of relationship is. Thankfully the cross has cured this aliment for all.

Later on in the book, Papa tells Mack bluntly that, “through his [Jesus’] death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world…The whole world, Mack” (p.194).  Not too surprisingly, Jesus tells Mack that, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims…many are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions…I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want them to join in their transformation in sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my beloved.”

While Young clearly deems most religious activities to be fruitless, he readily teaches that all people will be in heaven after they sincerely being seeking after God. The path traveled does not matter. The universalism of The Shack directly contradicts the words of the real Jesus who said,

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).

Not too surprisingly, humanity’s response to this divine drama is not one of repentance and faith at least not towards God. (We are called to liberate others by forgiving them thereby empowering God to reach them.) Because Christ died on the cross, we no longer have to follow the divine law. We are to do the opposite. The Holy Spirit tells Mack, “In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” In short, repentance and faith have been exchanged for the ambiguous ideas of love and relationship. If we love well, we have pleased God. We are to forget the the whole idea that God’s law has been written on the hearts of his children (Heb. 8;10:16). We are to  abandon the notion that salvation results in us having the divine power necessary to keep God’s “ You shall not” commands (John 14:5). As the Spirit tells Mack, “contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty.” God wants us to embrace the beautiful uncertainty of loving relationships.

And now we have arrived at the crux of the argument presented in The Shack. God is mysterious, unknown, and bigger than historical Christianity. He/She cannot be and must not be reduced down to the Bible. As Young writes, “Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book.” This is our greatest problem. We have reduced God to the Bible.

This is not a new complaint. Young joins a long list of liberal theologians who have regularly sought to free, “Gods’ voice” for the leather binding of our ornate study Bibles. What’s new is not the content of The Shack  but the accessibility of the doctrines it follows. Regardless of how palatable the format of fiction is to our senses, Young’s liberal theology will continue to be just that, liberal theology. And we evangelicals must not let the beauty of this narrative confuse us. God’s narrative in the Scriptures is far superior.

We do not have to fear The Shack. But we must recognize the book and the movie for what they are: a distortion of the gospel. We must exercise biblical discernment. Towards that end, I encourage you and your family to pass on the film this weekend and every weekend. Don’t go to the cabin. Go to the Word.

 

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

What’s Wrong With the Selfie Culture?

skyscapperIt turns out our brains like ‘likes’. When someone likes our photos, videos, or blogs, the reward center in our brain get a boost. Serotonin levels go up; we feel good; and then, we begin to engage in patterns and start doing things that keep those likes coming.

Viki Odintcova is no exception. The Russian model has gained approximately 3.3 million followers on Instagram by posting a whole host of provocative photos. And her desire to continue to amass followers and approval continues to drive decisions and  her lifestyle. They are pushing to her crazier and crazier  heights. Her most recent photo and video posts crossed a line, earning a strong rebuke from the nation of Dubai (the location of her latest stunt).

Yet the line she crossed was not the one of decency. She did not accidentally reveal the swimsuit parts of her body. No, she hung out of a window located on the 73 floor of a Dubai skyscraper. And what makes the pictures even more crazy and like worthy is that Viki was supported only by her assistant. She had no harness, ropes, or safety lines. She was suspended over 500 feet by a single hand. A slip or a missed step, and Viki would have lost everything. And still she proceeded to dangle her life in an effort to win the approval of millions of people whose only connection was a insignificant click.

And I fear that Viki is not alone. Over 25% of millennials, (our current college students and young adults) expect to be famous by the time they are 30. They believe that they are noteworthy, smart, and full of good ideas. In short, the problem with our young people and the problem that drove Niki to hang off of a skyscraper are not ultimately technological. They are theological. Increasingly, our culture as Barna notes is being revolutionized by the worship of self.

Young people are increasingly seeing themselves as the best judge of the world and others. They have also decided that they are sufficient. They can find the answers to their greatest needs, problems, and challenges from within. They have the power to keep the reward center in their brain humming along. Consequently, Viki hung off the side of the building because she concluded this was the best way to find joy, fulfillment, and happiness. And, she was willing to rick everything, her beauty, her human dignity, and her very life to get it.

3d4009e400000578-4227818-image-m-4_1487172760459The way to prevent future Viki’s is not to fight back against the smart phone. Rather, we need to challenge the theological framework that is driving the culture of self.  We need to share the beauty of Christ. We need to help our youth to see that a life motivated from within leads not to happiness but to misery, enslavement, and death. And in some cases as Viki has shown that death may not be far away.

And then, we need to highlight the glories of Christ. We need to teach that the truest life is found outside ourselves. It is found in a relationship with the God of the universe that is possible because his son has already died for all our sin.

As John 10:10 says, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Jesus is the solution to the millennial quest for greatness. And if our young people do not grasp this, we can expect that Viki will not be alone. For the false religion of self, that dominates pop culture will do just what Jesus said it would do. It “will kill and destroy.”

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Is It Time To Update Our Romance?

romanceIs it time to celebrate open marriages and relationships? According to Carrie Jenkins who recently wrote an article published in Aeon magazine the answer is a resounding, “Yes!” Championing her polyamorous position, Jenkins encourages repressed polygamist to boldly declare and to act upon their philosophical ideals. And though these ideas lack some societal acceptance, many people in today’s world have no problem with the lifestyle. For example, men have always had the ability to live and even to institutionalize the polygamist lifestyle. Western society permits men to ‘sow their wild oats,’ to boast about their romantic conquests, and to keep mistresses. But women are not allowed such freedom. Jenkins notes, “there is no word for a male ‘”mistress.'” Lamenting our current society’s enslavement to patriarchal thinking, the writer concludes that,

We must get beyond this. We need to question the limits we have placed on what counts as a “romantic” relationship. Freedom to love — the right to choose one’s own relationships without fear, shame or secrecy — is critical, not just for individuals but for us all collectively.

The times have changed, and it is time for our culture to change with us. Jenkins goes on to say,

Non-conformity is the mechanism that reshapes the social construct to better represent who we are, and who we want to be. Instead of forcing our relationships to conform to what society thinks love is, we could force the image of love to conform to the realities of our relationships.

Jenkins piece give us much to think about. And some on the fringes of Christendom may even agree with her. Most every youth group in America has had a sex-crazed teenager advocate for polyamorous relationships, citing the stories of Abraham, David, and Solomon. These men obviously did not embrace the monogamous relationship ideal found in today’s conservative churches. And still, God blessed those men of old.

But hidden behind both this biblical claim and Jenkins’ support for open relationships is a desire to radically redefine our family structure. They want to redefine the very core of who we are and who are neighbors are. As Jenkins notes, “Our ideals of “’romantic”’ love regulate not just our expectations about sex but also our conceptions of family and the nature of parenthood.” And so, we are left with the question: “Can we redefine love; can we redefine the very basis of human interaction?”

As Christians, we must respond with a resounding, “No.” We did not create the ideal of romantic love. It is not a social construct of our pleasing.

God originated the idea when he put Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 5:2). And, God placed one man and one women in paradise. From eternity, God has intended for monogamous marriage to be the bedrock of society (Eph. 5:22-33). All other expressions of sexuality are deemed to be unlawful.

The advancement of the polyamorous relationship originates via humanity after the fall. And Christ is extremely clear. Fallen humanity cannot improve on the perfection of the creator.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. – Matt. 15:19.

As we seek to reform society to fit our new view of romantic love, we will not better society. We will not discover that long sought for happiness that has alluded us. We will find hurt, despair, and dysfunction. From our hearts come evil thoughts. There is nothing good within our souls.

Think back to all those men in the Bible who sought to improve upon the monogamous lifestyle. Abraham family winds up in never ending turmoil (Gen. 21). Samson dies because of his sexual exploits (Jud. 16). Shechem is murdered (Gen. 34). David’s kingdom is rocked by wars and calamities because of his infidelity (2 Sam. 12). And Solomon loses the very kingdom that David created because of the wise king embraced the polygamous (I Kings 11). Sexual freedom is never praised. It never has a happy ending. Self-discovery and new romantic norms do not liberate their champions. They destroy them.

However, I do agree with Jenkins’ point that men have been giving a different standard. As Christians, we should mourn this societal debacle. And, we should address it both in our churches and in our homes. But to be clear, the solution is not found in the redefinition of romance. The solution is found in a return to the biblical ethic.

If we champion the words of Scripture, we will no longer be able to tolerate this double standard. We call fornication and adultery what they are: sin. We will no longer excuse the men who are addict to porn. We will no longer look the other way when our men go to strip clubs and hire prostitutes while away on business. We will not allow boys to be boys. We will preach the truth boldly, decrying all sexual sin. We must do away with the allusion that God winks at the sexual sins of our sons, husbands, and fathers. As Paul writes:

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – Cor. 6:9-10

Now to be fair, Jenkins is not advocating for us to change the Christian ethic. She is advocating for us to abandon it. But as Christians, we must not. And we do not cling to our Bibles because we fear social uncertainty. We do not the fear growing pains of the next generation. We fear the God of the universe who offers us true hope. We abide with him for he alone has words of eternal life.