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.

The virtual Christianity embraced by most American evangelicals constitutes a bubble that is about to burst.

In my previous post, I compared contemporary evangelical Christianity to a nanny state. A majority segment of evangelical radio, television, and books describes a relationship between the believer and God in which God accepts us unconditionally. Therefore, as with a governmental nanny state, we get all the benefits and have no responsibilities.

I further described this arrangement as virtual Christianity, since it finds no reality in Scripture or in real life. Hundreds of passages expose its error. Many of my previous posts demonstrate the error of this perspective.

This virtual Christianity is problematic on any number of counts. One of its major faults is its inability to produce strong Christians, strong men, strong fathers, strong leaders.

Europe provides a graphic display of the inability of nanny states to produce strong leadership. They stand idly by as Muslims take over their countries, either feeling impotent to do anything about it or not caring. Both are signs of weakness.

Feeling impotent is an evident indication of weakness. Standing by, wringing one’s hands, while others invade and take over their supposedly sovereign states, is not a picture of strength.

Not caring represents an even greater weakness. It reflects the deterioration of the soul described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, which leaves the inner person caring for nothing by self-gratification. Socialistic Europe is willing to have Islam take over in the future if it can have its state supported short workweek and long vacations in the present.

We find the evangelical church in America, with its nanny state, producing the same weakness of character. It is reflected in our President’s lack of resolve in protecting our borders. It is reflected in the fact that of the strongest leaders on the horizon, most are Catholics or Mormons, and few are evangelicals. It is reflected in many of the characteristics of the evangelical church uncovered by Barna.

Several days ago on a Christian radio program, a man who had been converted from Islam was asked why Christian women marry Muslim men, a good question, especially in light of the many serious downsides of doing so. His answer was that these women view Christian men as wimps, while they find a strength in Muslim men.

Why does a nanny state, be it political or spiritual, produce wimps? The answer is simply this: the stronger ones cause, the stronger ones personality.

Muslims may be misguided, but they believe that they have a cause worth dying for. This gives them a strength lacking in the West, both in secular and evangelical circles. While they are blowing themselves up for their cause, we (both secular Americans and evangelicals) are preoccupied with the latest movie—another expedition into our world of virtual reality.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently pronounced that the United States is a sunset civilization whereas Iran is a sunrise civilization. Judging from the strengths of personality of each, I tend to agree with him.

Many of the experts predict that catastrophe will soon fall on the United States—another 9/11, or even worse. We are like the population in Brave New World, living in virtual reality, both spiritual and otherwise, unaware and unconcerned that the enemy is about to burst our virtual bubble.

The solution must begin with the church trading in the comforts of its nanny state, it’s virtual reality, for biblical reality, for the recognition that God demands righteousness from his people and will judge them if they do not produce it.

I believe that the church in America ultimately will break out of its bubble of virtual reality. The question is what that will take. Will the preaching and teaching of the Word of God bring us to reality, or will it take a horrible disaster?

9/11 woke us up—for about a week. Apparently it will take something far worse than that. That leads to the follow-up question. By the time something sufficiently terrible to get our attention comes along, will it be too late to salvage life in America as we know it?

People like big government. Europe loves socialism and many Russians long for the good old days of communism, despite its repressiveness and cruelty. Here in the United States, the tide is constantly carrying us toward big government, and we must row hard to keep from going over the falls.

What is the appeal? In short, the nanny state provides maximum care with minimum responsibility.

Food, clothing, shelter, and health care for me and my family are no longer my responsibility. In fact, I have no responsibility. All of that rests on the shoulders of the state. More kids? No problem. The government has them covered.

One challenge is that the government must find funds to support the system. However, the answer is simple enough. They can get all they need from those rich people.

All they ask from me in return is my vote. I keep them in power. They keep me in goodies. Since there are more of us than there are rich people, we can keep them in power and vote ourselves more benefits. It’s a great system.

Evangelicals have discovered an even better version of the nanny state—a form of spiritual socialism. God provides everything for me unconditionally. He does not expect me to perform. He promises me all His blessings with no responsibility on my part.

That is what grace is all about. He takes all of the responsibility. I get all of the blessings.

This is the ultimate big government. It possesses an endless source of riches to draw from through the sacrifice of Christ. He earned it all on the cross. When God looks on us, He does not see our performance, but only the righteousness of Christ, the fount of endless resources.

In return, God only asks for my vote. That is, He only asks that I pray the prayer, invite Jesus into my heart, and acknowledge Him as my savior, all of which I am glad to do. Just think of the benefits, and they are only the earthly ones. The best are yet to come in heaven.

No responsibilities. Total care. It’s a great system. It is the ultimate nanny state.

The problem with this nanny state, and it is a significant one, is that it only exists in the minds of American evangelicals. It does not exist in reality nor is it described in the Bible. It is a state of our own creation.

Unfortunately, we do not have the creative capacity to give it actual substance. Therefore, we are forced to live in a fantasy world—a state of virtual Christianity.

I concluded my previous post by asking why American evangelicals would embrace a system that violated virtually hundreds of passages of Scripture. We view ourselves as the ultimate people of the book. We pride ourselves on our commitment to Scripture. Why, then, would we adopt a perspective so obviously contrary to Scripture?

We have just seen the answer. This system makes an offer too good to refuse. The evangelical nanny state is too comfortable, and it attracts too many adherents. No one wants to burst the bubble.

And if some killjoy attempts to do so, his voice will be ignored by the evangelical community. He is as welcome as a teetotaler at a beer bust, as an abstinence advocate at an orgy. The nanny state has so many voters supporting it that no alternative has a chance.

However, as with any form of virtual reality, this one can only work for so long before genuine reality catches up with it, before the bubble is burst by real-life forces. Our next post will deal with forces that are about burst the evangelical bubble.