Dumbfounded

There are times that I am stunned to silence (not many, granted, but a few…) by my own denomination. I wonder what it is that we believe and what our witness to the world really is. The latest brick in the wall of incredulity came when I saw that William Young, author of The Shack, would be one of the featured speakers at the 2010 Congress on Evangelism. I called up a former colleague to just check out the thinking behind having a major presenter whose theology is so at odds with our own. What I was told was:

this is a coup, getting someone so famous,
it doesn’t matter what his theology is, UMs are reading this book so its worth getting him,
his message is reaching millions even as ours is not, so we need to learn how to do it better,
endorsing poor theology isn’t that big an issue; most people don’t know which is good theology and which is bad,
what gets said isn’t as important as how it gets said,
plus, this is a big coup — getting someone so famous!

My feeble protests fell on deaf ears. Apparently, theology simply isn’t important. This is why Purpose Driven Life, Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now and the Left Behind series are all prominently displayed at our Cokesbury stores nationwide. In my circle of seminary professor friends there is universal confusion as to why any of these books are being read, studied, or supported by United Methodist clergy. It results in what one of my colleagues calls “the unrelenting stupidification of United Methodists.” Make it simplistic, make it entertaining, make it fun, but don’t worry one iota about intelligence or integrity.

To the argument that these books are “harmless” one of my professorial pals reflects, “they’re insidious. They appeal because they are happy-crappy, positive feel-good books. But just because they lack any substance or value doesn’t make them innocuous. They all subtly communicate that the Christian faith is all about us and our feelings and our needs. They divide the world into those who are blessed and those who are not. They are a form of “ignosticism” — secret knowledge for the ignorant.”

“The Left Behind books are simply hateful. And the Prosperity gospel books are not much better. All of these books are like children’s fairy tales, reinforcing an immature faith for an immature audience. The Shack is perhaps the greatest insult to intelligent Christians anywhere, yet it is a best seller. It is almost understandable that the untrained and poorly taught read this book. What is indefensible at any level is that a seminary-trained ordained clergyperson would endorse such tripe.”

But these two opinions illustrate little more than the divide between academic religion and the lived religion in U.S. congregations. The average U.S. local church is not nearly as concerned with sound theology as they are with filling the pews. I know a large number of pastors who adopt a “whatever it takes” attitude to getting people to come to church. If people get their understanding of divine intervention from Touched By An Angel and Joan of Arcadia, so be it. As one pastor told me, “who knows what’s true about angels? One story is as good as another whether I tell it or it’s on TV.”

If it doesn’t matter what our message is, why bother being United Methodist? If anyone’s theology is as good as anyone else’s, why bother studying at all. In our age where poor, sloppy, uncritical thinking is labeled “post-modern” (by those who have no real clue what post-modernism is) and every individual’s interpretation is as valid and true as everyone else’s, why discuss our faith or prayerfully seek to discern God’s will? What is the witness of The United Methodist Church when we promote any theology — good or bad — and say it really doesn’t matter?

Sure, there is a broad spectrum of theological perspectives, and we need to respect the full gamut. But there are also some basic rigors of critical thinking that define United Methodists as separate from “looser” approaches. A friend of mine asked me not long ago, “so why don’t United Methodists write break-out best sellers like Osteen and Warren” For me, the answer is simple, speaking the theological truth in love will never appeal to the mass audience. It demands too much, it discomforts, and it requires sacrifice and commitment. United Methodists cannot compromise their core values and foundational beliefs enough to write the kind of mind candy and spiritual Twinkies that people snarf up to put a book on the best-seller list. At least, for now, we may read the stuff, but we’re embarrassed enough not to write the stuff.

Rate this:

35 responses to “Dumbfounded”

Gary L Lake Dillensnyder, PA

November 17, 2009

i find it interesting that the dumbing down philosophy gets connected to church growth (numerical/statistical) while we hear little andknow even less of how our congregations might actually grow and deepen in Christ and the realm of just peace if we actually emphaized good theology, good liturgy, good sacramental spirituality, good dialog, good ministry, good mission, good presence. medicority has become par for the course. what opportunities might we be missing by being better a being church?

Reply
gavin richardson

November 17, 2009

i applaud the congress for not just getting the same old person.. but then again, they probably have those folks too. its an interesting audience at the event.

Reply
Rev Sarah

November 17, 2009

While I see all sorts of theological issues with the contents of The Shack I was excited when my “Primetimers” group (55+) asked me to lead them in a discussion on the book.

When I invited them to share with me what sorts of images of God they hold dear in their hearts someone answered, “Father” and 40 heads nodded in agreement, followed by silence and puzzled looks as I waited for more answers. Then, each table read aloud passages from scripture that articulated another image for God (a dozen from Fortress to Mothering Hen). I can’t imagine in a million years another entry into conversation about expansive language for God if it weren’t for this novel- a book that got people talking about the topics theologians can’t wait for someone to ask them about.

I even challenged them to come up with children’s sermons to explain the trinity and then deconstructed them one heresy at a time. Again, what 70-something would otherwise care about modalism if it weren’t for first reading The Shack?

For me it seems important to be able to leverage the tools that are already out there in a way that is redemptive instead of swallowing them hook, line, and sinker.

What if William P. Young simply helped pastors find a way to tell our own stories in a more compelling manner that could capture a national audience? Any book with such a horrendous first 80 pages that still manages to spread like wildfire must have something that connects with people…imagine what evangelism would be like if we could take some Good News and have it spread like wildfire?!?

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  November 17, 2009
  
  Man, if more of our churches and church people took this approach we would be a lot better off. My lament is that for every redemptive story like yours, I have heard seven or eight where people — including pastors — swallowed it hook, line, and sinker… When I asked my former colleague if there would be discussion around The Shack’s theology at the Congress, I was politely told that “that would be rude.”
  
  Reply
  1. Rev Sarah
    
    November 17, 2009
    
    How sad that having an opposing theological position is considered to be rude! Jesus must be the rudest of us all, what with his constant challenges to the Pharisees and their theology….I see such positive potential in having Young speak, but it sounds like isn’t going to come to fruition 😦
David Springstead, Sr.

November 17, 2009

Our church also did a study on The Shack, which allowed us to guide people through it. It has been, to date, one of the most successful studies ever done here. What’s wrong with story telling? Seems I recall a Jewish rabbi who did much the same thing. And he also had to explain what the stories meant.

We remember life as stories. We need to use them to communicate the glory of God in Christ Jesus as well.

Maranatha.

Reply
1. John Meunier
  
  November 17, 2009
  
  I’m fairly certain Dan did not object to stories in his post at all. The problem with The Shack is not that it is a story.
  
  Reply
2. doroteos2
  
  November 17, 2009
  
  Story teliing is great. Jesus did it, and he did it well. I can’t speak to your experience, but in many instances the “success” of The Shack is measured by popularity not intrinsic value. It is an easy read and doesn’t demand anything of the reader. For most people, the only way to navigate the simplistic inaccuracies is with a spiritually and theologically well-trained guide. When I wrote my review of The Shack, I was inundated with letters, emails, and even phone calls (split about 50/50 defending the book or applauding my criticism of it). So I am well aware that a lot of people found the book inspiring. The problems I see? One lifelong United Methodist shared “There are so many things in the Bible I wrestle with and don’t understand. The Shack explained it all, and it helps me realize I don’t need to read and understand the Bible to be a good Christian.” Another younger evangelical took away from the book affirmation that “church” isn’t necessary at all. The only thing that matters is a person’s individual realtionship to God. And my favorite, “It is a blessing to know that God and Jesus are just like people we know, not some supreme deities we can’t relate to. It’s so exciting to me that I have probably met God before and didn’t even realize it!” An anthropomorphic manifestation of a God that doesn’t make us face the hard realities of life, but merely seeks to make us feel better is not the message our world and our church needs. Dumbing down and reducing the rich complexities of life in Christ serves little purpose. Sure, it makes it popular, but it doesn’t make it good.
  
  Reply
bronxcat

November 17, 2009

I am concerned that people who do not know much about theology will be swayed by books with questionable theology, or by books that have outright lies (Da Vinci Code for example). Having someone speak at a conference certainly implies endorsement, which is of great concern. But I am interested in what you have against the Purpose Driven Life? Thanks!

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  November 17, 2009
  
  I think the Purpose Driven Life is popular because it follows the long line of positive thinking books that became the rage in the 20th century. Where is the need for community? For shared spiritual journey? For worship focused on God? For a sacramental aspect of the faith? Personal responsibility? Lifestyle values? It is not that it is a bad book, but it is grossly incomplete and panders to the materialistic, individualistic, and consumeristic mindset of 21st century U.S. culture. It is a “feel good” book, but lacks substance to deal with all the pitfalls facing most of us as we seek to live a life defined by purpose and meaning. In my work with spiritual seekers ages 21-60, Purpose Driven Life was named more than any other book as one given to them by a friend that further turned them off to modern-day Christianity. Words I captured from their comments were “phony, superficial, simplistic, stupid, manipulative, arrogant, tired, insulting, ridiculous.” As with many of these books, people love them or heate them; they are seldom indifferent.
  
  Reply
Jeff Conn

November 17, 2009

I liked the Shack because it makes the trinity seem “real” to many folks who would otherwise write it off. I also feel it tends toward universalism which is probably where most Christians myself included are heading. And it does a pretty nice job of making forgiveness an essential part of God’s makeup which more conservative writers tend not to do. I think it was a fairly clever way to deal with the question of God’s goodness and the existence of evil especially in a world where abused and murdered children are all too common.
I liked Left Behind too even though the last several editions were padded in my opinion. just because Methodism is amillennial doesn’t mean we can’t be interested in Revelation and prophecy. I’m a liberal but everything I believe about the Bible doesn’t fit in that category.

Reply
Jay

November 17, 2009

Dan, when UM folks are willing to write stuff that tells a story rather than is a recitation of statistics, then we too might grab an audience. You are absolutely right that The Shack is wanting in the depth of it’s theology, and I won’t argue that the writing quality is far from Flannery O’Conner, but it tells a story that has grabbed the imaginations of folks and it is through stories, not systematic theologies, that our traditions are passed down from one generation to the next. Perhaps the problem is that we don’t trust our stories so we bolster them with data and platitudes, failing to recognize that God is often found in the simple things, not the complex. I’m not arguing that we write drivel for the masses simply to reach the masses, but I am suggesting that we need to recognize that narratives/stories (what we generally call fiction) has a wider appeal than what most UM’s generally write.

This is institutionalized in our publishers. Our friend Tony shared with me a book that I liked quite a bit by Glandion Carney that told the fictional story of a woman seeking after God and finding God through a relationship with a Franciscan brother. The book wasn’t Tolstoy, but it was an engaging story that presented a view of the spiritually disciplined life that would be helpful for many in my church. When Tony went to our friends at the denominational publishers about picking up this book when the previous publishing contract had expired, he was told outright: “We don’t do fiction…”

Look, I led a group through a reading of The Shack. Was the theology bad? Absolutely, but in talking about the book together I was able to identify the bad parts and push on what the book was saying. On the other hand, the personification of the Trinity, while flawed in many ways, DID lead folks to reexamine their own images of God, something that is important in being a disciple of Jesus. Yes, I could have pulled out Bruggeman or Moltmann, and may do so in the future. But at that time, The Shack was what folks were talking about and whether I like it or not, it was important that I offered a place where we could critique and learn about God in the process.

One last thought. One of my favorite authors is Stephen King. Yes he is prolific and the subject matter is dark but he has a writing style that I can relate to and his stories suck me in. Is he Hemmingway? Nope, and he would make no claim to greatness. But he tells a good story that I can take in in short doses which entertains and sometimes even leads me to think about dark things in new ways. Some elites would say my King enjoyment is crass and not worthy of “serious” reading. Maybe that’s true, but there is an elitism in that critique that isn’t willing to recognize that a good story has its own benefits, and in the middle of it all, has the power to influence us far more than we know.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  November 17, 2009
  
  Jay,
  I like King, too. He writes compelling stories of good and evil, the supernatural battle for the human sphere, etc., but he doesn’t pretend to be doing more than telling a story. When The Shack first came out, it wasn’t placed in Christian fiction. It has been touted as “revelation,” which is a whole different claim than telling a story. And where are people getting the idea I don’t like story telling or think it is a valid form of teaching? There has been brilliant Christian fiction, and even less than brilliant fiction that I think we would benefit from reading. Even Christopher Moore’s, Lamb, would be a great church study. I love story, just not this story. There is a pretense here that is alarming, and it is evident to me from literally hundreds of reviews and pieces of direct correspondence that a large number of people are not reading it as fiction, but as a modern day explanation of “truth.” Not everyone thinks the theology is bad, and in some rare and alarming cases, people like this theology better than the Bible and are shaping/reshaping what they believe based on it.
  
  I’m not in favor of censorship, and I believe everyone has a right to read what they want to. I also believe that leaders in our communities of faith have a responsibility to speak the truth in love about matters of faith. The DaVinci Code is a story, too. Very popular, with a religious theme. Does that make it an appropriate guide for spiritual formation? Are there not works of Christian fiction and non-fiction of higher merit that we should promote instead? Should we only read what is popular and use the excuse that people won’t read otherwise? For me, in most cases, this is one more sellout to cultural consumerism and popularity. Everybody is reading it, so we should, too. I really am not surprised — where the treasure of the UMC is, there its heart is also. The Shack is probably a very good indicator of the overall quality and values of our contemporary United Methodist movement, but this bothers me.
  
  Reply
  1. Jay
    
    November 17, 2009
    
    Okay, I hear the concern and agree with much of what you are saying. And for the record, I don’t think that Willie Young has much to say to a conference on evangelists from a theological or even programmatic perspective. Having heard some interviews with Young, he has a pretty realistic view of his book and doesn’t try to make it be more than it is (which, if the story is true, was written to his kids to help them understand his view of God, grace, etc.). The best he can offer is helping folks recognize the deep longings in the world that have been stroked by his book.
    
    The line between cowtowing to popular culture and engaging it is narrow and difficult to traverse. On the one hand, we are a counter-cultural movement that should be challenging and critical. On the other hand, failing to engage the culture can easily lead to irrelevancy. Maybe we should be more like the Amish (whose witness in the face of tragedy a few years ago was profound) but we walk a middle way that requires engagement and critique, leaving us open to the possibility of being co-opted by the culture we are critiquing.
    
    As you note, the rise of The Shack isn’t that different from the flurry around “The DaVinci Code” (“Angels and Demons” was better, by the way) or for that matter Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” While I frankly saw many problems in Gibson’s movie, as a pastor I couldn’t ignore that my folks were going to see it whether I liked it or not. My job then is to assist them in the task of interpreting the cultural phenomenon in the light of scripture and tradition.
    
    So, in the end, by all means critique “The Shack” or any work along the way. Push on those who would misuse it as some sort of special revelation from God. Understand though that there are some of us out here in the trenches who are using these phenomena as an opportunity to try and teach the deeper truths.
  2. doroteos2
    
    November 17, 2009
    
    I hear you, Jay, and as we have exchanged earlier when I posted my review of the Shack way back in February or March, my position isn’t that we hide our heads in the sand. I believe there is a critical role in interpretation, and even just raising questions. We have UM churches that have studied Rhonda Byrne’s, The Secret. I feel it could be very helpful navigating all the poor theology, irrational thinking, and silly superstition in this book, but it bugs me when I get a newsletter promoting, “Gospel Truth from The Secret: Christianity for Today” as the title of the study. What is the touchstone by which we help people discern? Is the “anything goes, believe what you want,” subtext of The Shack and The Secret really what we believe? I know you take a more critical and rigorous approach to analyzing cultural phenomena than many do. (And on a side note, I also know that the highest demographic audience for Jerry Springer, Survivor, and Desperate Housewives are evangelical Christians — so there is a lot of need for interpretation…)