Summary of Chapter 2
The 2nd 'lie' Young addresses is 'God is good. I am not.' Of course, Young does not dispute God's goodness, but he does question our lack of goodness. He believes that there is good in us. In fact, he believes that we are essentially good (since we are made by God in the divine image). Young acknowledges that something has gone wrong with God's good creation, but sees it in terms of sickness and blindness rather than actual depravity. Rather than simply being wicked, we are deceived about our truest nature.
Reaction
The overall point does not seem to be altogether different from that of chapter 1. Again, Young is emphasizing the truth of Genesis 1 over and against the truth of Genesis 3. We've believed lies and forgotten truths. Young is far from endorsing a view that humans are inherently good in and of themselves. He is careful to link our goodness to the fact that we are God's creation. But it does seem that Young runs the risk of underestimating human depravity. It seems to me that our problem is not simply that we're surrounded by deceptive darkness. In some cases we actually love the darkness. Jesus met some people who didn't think of themselves as image-bearers, but he also met some people who struggled not with shame, but with pride. My continued caution, here, is that Young's view of our sin might not be thoroughgoing enough.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Lies We Believe About God (1)
Summary of Chapter 1
The 1st 'lie' Young addresses is the idea that "God loves us, but doesn't like us". Young remembers sharing at a women's prison. One woman, who had read The Shack asked directly (after his talk): "Do you really think that Papa is fond of me?" Young feels the answer to that question, seemingly no matter who is asking, is YES. God doesn't just love us become 'God is love' but also because we are loveable and likeable. God is fond of us.
Reaction
Young seems to be reacting (why respond to lies that don't exist?), here, against an over-emphasis (by some) on our fallenness. It does seem, I'd agree, that too many Christian teachers beat the drum of human depravity without also singing the note of our inherent worth. Genesis 1 (that we are divine image bearers) comes before Genesis 3 (that we are fallen). Our inherent goodness is a greater, more basic, truth about us than our badness. Obviously, it would be possible to over-react (to the idea that we are merely pond-scum) in the opposite direction and conclude that human beings are simply good. But I see no evidence, at this early point, that Young is in danger of making that mistake. No clear objections here, but I am curious if Young might have swung to the other extreme by not taking our fallenness quite seriously enough.
The 1st 'lie' Young addresses is the idea that "God loves us, but doesn't like us". Young remembers sharing at a women's prison. One woman, who had read The Shack asked directly (after his talk): "Do you really think that Papa is fond of me?" Young feels the answer to that question, seemingly no matter who is asking, is YES. God doesn't just love us become 'God is love' but also because we are loveable and likeable. God is fond of us.
Reaction
Young seems to be reacting (why respond to lies that don't exist?), here, against an over-emphasis (by some) on our fallenness. It does seem, I'd agree, that too many Christian teachers beat the drum of human depravity without also singing the note of our inherent worth. Genesis 1 (that we are divine image bearers) comes before Genesis 3 (that we are fallen). Our inherent goodness is a greater, more basic, truth about us than our badness. Obviously, it would be possible to over-react (to the idea that we are merely pond-scum) in the opposite direction and conclude that human beings are simply good. But I see no evidence, at this early point, that Young is in danger of making that mistake. No clear objections here, but I am curious if Young might have swung to the other extreme by not taking our fallenness quite seriously enough.
Lies We Believe About God (Intro)
Today, I am summarizing and reacting to WM. Paul Young's introduction to his new book Lies We Believe About God.
Introduction Summary
Young was brought up in the Western Evangelical Protestant tradition which, he believes, places too much emphasis on acquiring (a sense of) certainty. He now believes that we do well to ask questions. He believes that question-asking has freed him to improve his theology which, in turn, has helped him to become a better man. He doesn't claim to be a theological expert and he insists that his readers look to the Trinity (not him) for truth. He offers his thoughts not as final answers, but as personal ponderings worthy of consideration as we pursue the truth of Christ.
Reaction
I resonate with Young's introduction. I, too, feel the church in my context too often sees things in black & white terms. A sense of certainly has arguably become an idol within American Christianity. Questions are good and healthy to ask. The introduction comes across to me as humble and written in the right spirit.
Introduction Summary
Young was brought up in the Western Evangelical Protestant tradition which, he believes, places too much emphasis on acquiring (a sense of) certainty. He now believes that we do well to ask questions. He believes that question-asking has freed him to improve his theology which, in turn, has helped him to become a better man. He doesn't claim to be a theological expert and he insists that his readers look to the Trinity (not him) for truth. He offers his thoughts not as final answers, but as personal ponderings worthy of consideration as we pursue the truth of Christ.
Reaction
I resonate with Young's introduction. I, too, feel the church in my context too often sees things in black & white terms. A sense of certainly has arguably become an idol within American Christianity. Questions are good and healthy to ask. The introduction comes across to me as humble and written in the right spirit.
Lies We Believe About God (Foreword)
Today, I begin reviewing, chapter by chapter, the book "Lies We Believe About God" by WM. Paul Young. His first book The Shack (a fictional story) created a great amount of controversy. Some claimed the book was heretical while others defended its orthodoxy. This new book (a work of non-fiction) is sure to reveal Young's present theology with greater clarity. This review will serve as an opportunity for me to share my thoughts on the book's content.
To begin, I will summarize and react to the foreword for this book, which was written by C. Baxter Kruger.
Foreword Summary
C. Baxter Kruger is a theologian and a friend of Young's. He wrote a (I'm guessing) positive response to The Shack titled The Shack Revisited. In this foreword, he aims to share with us the framework from which Young writes, which (he claims) is the world shaking truth that Jesus is the God-man. Kruger suggests that Young's theology is an attempt to work out the implications of the fact that Jesus truly represents God and humanity. Kruger is not sure he agrees with everything that Young has written in this work (he admits the possibility that christological mistakes are made), but he agrees with much and appreciates (and shares) the Jesus-centered paradigm from which Young is working.
Reaction
I have read 1 book by Kruger (Jesus and the Undoing of Adam) which I considered to be an excellent resource on atonement theology. What's more, I agree with the Jesus centered paradigm that Kruger and Young are working with. Kruger is right, I think, in saying that "working out the implications of Jesus's identity as the eternal Son of God united with humanity in our sin is the task of truly Christian theology."
To begin, I will summarize and react to the foreword for this book, which was written by C. Baxter Kruger.
Foreword Summary
C. Baxter Kruger is a theologian and a friend of Young's. He wrote a (I'm guessing) positive response to The Shack titled The Shack Revisited. In this foreword, he aims to share with us the framework from which Young writes, which (he claims) is the world shaking truth that Jesus is the God-man. Kruger suggests that Young's theology is an attempt to work out the implications of the fact that Jesus truly represents God and humanity. Kruger is not sure he agrees with everything that Young has written in this work (he admits the possibility that christological mistakes are made), but he agrees with much and appreciates (and shares) the Jesus-centered paradigm from which Young is working.
Reaction
I have read 1 book by Kruger (Jesus and the Undoing of Adam) which I considered to be an excellent resource on atonement theology. What's more, I agree with the Jesus centered paradigm that Kruger and Young are working with. Kruger is right, I think, in saying that "working out the implications of Jesus's identity as the eternal Son of God united with humanity in our sin is the task of truly Christian theology."
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
Book Review
The Bible and Homosexual Practice
By Robert Gagnon
I can't imagine a more thorough treatment of the issue. Gagnon painstakingly follows every seeming loose end in making the case that homosexual behavior is unacceptable for the professing Christian and harmful to the secular world.
By Robert Gagnon
I can't imagine a more thorough treatment of the issue. Gagnon painstakingly follows every seeming loose end in making the case that homosexual behavior is unacceptable for the professing Christian and harmful to the secular world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)