Evangelical Reformation

William P. Young’s The Shack was destined to be an evangelical best seller. Eugene Peterson’s endorsement on the cover asserts, “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

An interesting evangelical trait is to brand books that convey concepts already embraced by the popular evangelical culture as bold and prophetic and groundbreaking. That’s what Peterson does here. I must admit that I am not a sufficiently adequate historian to know what Pilgrim’s Progress did for that generation, and I wonder what Peterson thinks The Shack will do for ours.

It has sold so well because it expresses in fiction form the contemporary evangelical mindset. Its popularity rests not in its presentation of some theological truth that we need to embrace but in conveying so graphically what we already believe.

We find God reduced to a jiving black woman. How more politically correct could he make God out to be? I am not suggesting that God is white. However, neither do I find Scripture characterizing God as being hip and cool.

And no doubt Young wants us to get in touch with God’s feminine side, even though Scripture portrays Him as a male. Yes, He can relate to us as a nursing mother at times, but if this inclination represented the essence of who He is, the Bible would have presented Him as a woman.

I had a professor at NYU that observed that, “God created man in His own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.” Though this view of God does not reflect the one given in Scripture, it does match the God of today’s evangelical community.

This portrayal of God constitutes just one aspect of The Shack that corresponds to contemporary Christian culture. The whole book might be considered a commentary on the current evangelical mindset. Note, for example, the distain for the church. Even the format, the narrative, reflects the contemporary culture.

Therefore, what the book serves to do for us is further petrify us in our unbiblical view of God and life. The book is not ground-breaking but ground-hardening.

This acceptance of The Shack despite its unbiblical orientation reveals another facet of the evangelical approach to life. Of course, as with the secular world, the hallmark of contemporary evangelical thinking is acceptance. God accepts unconditionally, and so should we. Therefore, even though some aspects of the book might miss the scriptural mark, we are not of the narrow-minded, Pharisaical orientation that makes an issue of such minutia.

Rather, the wizened response of the thoughtful evangelical reader looks past those theological misrepresentations and reflects, “I believe I understand what he is trying to say.” In other words, if his intentions are good, we can overlook some heresy for the sake of making the point.

This approach to sanctioning fiction or nonfiction literature makes for a toxic theological climate. In our commitment not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have left the baby to wallow in some very polluted water.

But the worst issue resides in our failure to apply this spirit of understanding and acceptance and tolerance evenly. While we have all he toleration in the world for someone advocating heresies compatible with our culture, secular and evangelical, we extend no such latitude to those who are out of step with the culture.

When is the last time you heard someone say, “I don’t agree with some of the positions they take at Bob Jones University, but I think I know where they are coming from”? Contemporary evangelicals possess the capacity to swallow the heretical camel to their left, but strain at the gnat to the right.

This bias in toleration toward the left relentlessly shifts our thinking in that direction. Just as the frog in the kettle, the baby is not aware of how toxic the bathwater has gotten even though it has inflicted on him a life-threatening disease.

We have been billing the Sermon on the Mount as the ultimate success seminar. A major reason for this designation is that the sermon tells us how to get along with God, and that is the ultimate basis for success. After all, if the God of the universe is blessing you, you will be a success, and if He is not, you are in trouble.

How do we get along with God? Jesus provides an answer in our next Beatitude: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)

This verse does not tell us explicitly who will show the merciful mercy, but the clear implication is that it is God. True, when we are merciful, other human beings may be more likely to cut us some slack, but that is not the message here.

One reason I say this is that this is not always the case. No one was more merciful than Jesus, yet the world showed Him precious little mercy.

More to the point, the Beatitudes tend to be talking about God’s response to us. It is God who comforts the mourning, who rewards the persecuted, etc. Therefore, in this Beatitude Jesus is telling us that if we are merciful, God will show us mercy.

Therefore, Jesus is teaching us that we get along with God in regard to being recipients of His mercy by showing mercy to others.

This seemly innocent teaching in reality represents a frontal assault against the current evangelical worldview. The shapers for contemporary evangelical thinking assure us that our behavior does not affect God’s attitude toward us or treatment of us. That is all of grace.

However, this Beatitude seems to teach otherwise. And to make matters worse, this same message permeates this significant sermon. The next chapter records Jesus teaching that God only forgives those who forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15), and in the following chapter Jesus teaches that those who judge will be judged by the same standard (Matthew 7:1-2).

Therefore, Jesus consistently asserts that contemporary evangelical leaders are wrong, that God deals with us according to our behavior. If you are nasty, God will be nasty to you, and if you are nice, you can expect similar treatment from God. Want to get along with God? Be righteous and kind. Love your neighbor.

This, of course, does not exclude grace. We are saved by grace, i.e. God justifies us by grace. We can go to God for forgiveness of present sins. Beyond that, God bestows many undeserved blessings on us.

However, it is a mistake to use this great truth to paint God as a one-dimensional personality. We have a low opinion of one-noters. Why would we think that God is one of them?

Why would we? Maybe because we have come under the influence of Rogerian psychology with its teaching of unconditional acceptance, which has led us to believe that “I will get along with God just because I am me, and I am special.”

This orientation has misled us to believe that the blood of Christ makes our behavior inconsequential to God. That view suggests that God feels just fine with us when we hurt others, the implications being that we are the only person in the universe that matters to God.

This view, seeing ourselves as the only person that matters, constitutes great existentialism and Rogerian psychology, but makes for really bad theology. It also engenders bad behavior, as revealed in George Barna’s findings regarding evangelicals.

If we would start to believe that how we treat others will influence how God treats us, this could start an evangelical reformation.

Isaiah describes those who reach a state of maturity pleasing to God as “oaks of righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:3)

This word picture congers up the image of a massive oak tree with a trunk about a yard in diameter. When I lived on a mountain top in Arkansas, we had one of those right next to our house. The strongest wind could not make that trunk budge one centimeter. That portrays the character of the person Isaiah has in mind.

Temptations of all kind cannot make this person even flinch. Infidelity never enters his mind, nor does lying or unfaithfulness to his employer or cheating on his income tax. When the e-mail spam message offers seductive pictures, he deletes it without hesitation. You get the idea.

Not only is he unshakable in resistance to the negatives, but he is also stalwart in his commitment to duty in the positive areas. He is responsible, as good as his word, uses his capacities for God’s purposes, and is faithful in meeting domestic duties.

We see a person of moral might. A person who will not just tell a person what he wants to hear, but who will tell the truth, even when it may be offensive, like Joseph in the interpretation of the baker’s dream or Daniel in giving the meaning of the handwriting on the wall.

In the Beatitudes, Jesus promised that the person who hungers and thirsts after righteousness will be filled. In other words, if a person genuinely wants to be an oak of righteousness, Jesus will enable him to reach that goal.

The Sermon on the Mount is the ultimate success seminar. It is difficult to think of a more meaningful mark of success, a better aspiration in life, than this one.

The evangelical community conveys a different set of values. When the preacher shares how he lost his temper with the kids on the way to church (i.e. how he is a pussy willow of righteousness), the typical response is, “Oh pastor, it made me feel so good to hear you say that. Now we know that you are a real human being just like we are.”

That, of course, is hogwash. No church member ever doubted the humanity of his pastor. Church gossip makes that abundantly clear. What they really are saying is, “Pastor, thanks for lowering the standard. Now I can feel more comfortable about being a pussy willow of righteousness, too.”

Instead of striving to become oaks of righteousness, we prefer to sink to the lowest common denominator, with our “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” bumper stickers. Raising the bar rather than lowering it, making our aim to become oaks of righteousness, might start an evangelical reformation.