Ariminius and Open Theism

March 5, 2013

Ever since the emergence of open theism on the evangelical scene in the 1990s, there have been several attempts to saddle Arminianism with the theological interests of open theism. On the one hand, Reformed theologians find it to their advantage to identify Arminianism and open theism, if for no other reason than the slippery slope argument has a concrete example. Open theists, on the other hand, seek some historical legitimacy through identification with Arminianism if not also some kind of theological cover. As a result, whether one is seeking to delegitimize open theism (as Reformed theologians intend) or to legitimize it (as open theists intend), it is to the mutual benefit of Reformed theology and open theism to classify Arminianism and open theism together.

Arminius affirms with Reformed theology a “meticulous providence” where God has such sovereignty over evil such that no evil act is autonomous and uncircumscribed by God’s intent for good. God is so sovereign that God concurs with the act itself such that its effect has specific meaning and significance. This is a critical difference between classic Arminianism and open theism.

On the other hand, classic Arminianism and open thesim share a common conviction that human freedom is, in some sense, libertarian rather than compatibilist. God permits sin; God is not the primary cause of sin. In the permission of sin, according to Arminius, God does not concur in the efficacy of the act though God does concur in the ontology and capacity of the act. Here open theists and classic Arminians stand together.

Historically, there are at least three positions in this discussion with Classic Arminianism holding the “middle ground.” (1) The Sovereignty of the Divine Decrees where God has decreed from eternity what will happen within human history (Reformed scholasticism); (2) The Sovereignty of Divine Engagement where God is active, or concurs, in every event within human history such that every event has divine purpose and meaning though without divine decrees determining what will happen within human history (classic Arminianism); and (3) The Sovereignty of the Divine Project where God, for the sake of the divine project risks the effects and meaning of human history in such a way that it is beyond divine management for the greater good but does not endanger God’s ultimate goal or project (open theism).

These are some paragraphs taken from my article published last year as “Classical Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in Their Theologies of Providence,” Trinity Journal 33ns (2012) 3-18. The article is now available for reading through the above link.


Can We Justify God?

February 17, 2013

Joshua, my son, you would have been 28 today.  I miss you, and yearn to hold you again.  One day….yes, one day.  Till then, rest peacefully.

 Joshua died  at the age of sixteen. I offer this chapter out of my ebook on The Shack and spiritual recovery in his honor.

********

Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Romans 11:33-34 (NIV)

The death of a child, especially the brutal murder of Missy, raises passionate questions about God’s handling of the world. Mack’s “last comment” to the Triune God around the breakfast table on that first morning was something we have all thought at one time or another: “I just can’t imagine any final outcome that would justify all this” (p. 127).

There it is. Bold. In God’s face. It is almost a gauntlet challenging God’s own imagination, his own resources—his wisdom and knowledge. Can anything justify the evil in the world?

This is the problem of theodicy, that is, the justification of God. Why does God create a world in which evil is so pervasive, strong and unruly? Why does he give evil this space to grow? When a cyclone kills over 130,000 in Myanmar, an earthquake snuffs out the lives of 80,000 more in China, and a tsunami kills about 20,000 in Japan, I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

When my son dies of a genetic disorder after watching him slowly degenerate over ten years and I learn of the tragic death of a friend’s son (John Robert Dobbs)—both dying on the same date, May 21—I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

How could I possibly defend any of that? I suppose I could remove God from responsibility by disconnecting him from his creation but I would then still have a God who decided to be a Deist. That’s no comfort—it renders God malevolent or at least disinterested. I prefer to say God is involved and he decides to permit (even cause–though I would have no way of knowing which is the case in any particular circumstance) suffering. I would prefer to hold God responsible for the world he created and how the world proceeds.

I’m tired of defending him. Does God really need my feeble, finite, and fallible arguments in his defense? Perhaps some need to hear a defense—maybe it would help, but I also know it is woefully inadequate at many levels. God does not need my defense as much as God needs to encounter people in their crises. My arguments will not make the difference; only God’s presence will.

I know the theodices and I have attempted them myself. Young utilizes a few of them. A free-will theodicy that roots evil in the free choices of human beings does not help me with earthquakes, genetics and cyclones. It certainly does not explain why God does not answer the prayers of his people with compassionate protection from such. A soul-making theodicy that says God permits evil to develop our characters does not explain the quantity and quality of suffering in the world. Suffering sometimes breaks souls rather than making them. There are other theodicies and combinations, but I find them all pastorally inadequate and rationally unsatisfying.

My rationalizations have all shipwrecked on the rocks of experience in a hurting and painful world. The way I most often approach God in the midst of suffering is now protest, a form of lament.

Does God have a good reason for the pervasive and seemingly gratuitous nature of suffering in the world? I hope he does—I even believe he does, but I don’t know what the reasons are nor do I know anyone who does. My hope is not the conclusion of a well-reasoned, solid inductive/deductive argument but is rather the desperate cry of the sufferer who trusts that the Creator has good intentions and purposes for his creation. I believe there is a Grand Purpose that overcomes the Great Sadness.

Lament is not exactly a theodicy, but it is my response to suffering. It contains my complaint that God is not doing more (Psalm 74:11), my questions about “how long?” (Psalm 13:1), my demand to have my “Why?” questions answered (Psalm 44:24), and my disillusionment with God’s handling of the world (Job 21, 23-24). It is what I feel; it is my only “rational” response to suffering.

I realize that I am a lowly creature whose limitations should relativize my protest (as when God came to Job). But, as with Job and the Psalmists, I continue to lament—I continue because I have divine permission to do so! Of all “people,” I must be honest with God, right? I recognize that my feeble laments cannot grasp the transcendent glory of the one who created the world and I realize that were God to speak he would say to me something of what he told Job. But until he speaks….until he comforts…until he transforms the world, I will continue to speak, lament and protest.

But that response is itself insufficient. I protest, but I must also act.

As one who believes the story of Jesus, I trust that God intends to redeem, heal and renew this world. As a disciple of Jesus, I am committed to imitate his compassion for the hurting, participate in the healing, and sacrifice for redemption. I am, however, at this point an impatient disciple.

Does this mean that there are no comforting “words” for the sufferer? No, I think the story itself is a comfort; we have a story to tell but we must tell it without rationalizing or minimizing creation’s pain. We have a story to tell about God, Israel and Jesus. God loves us despite the seeming evidence to the contrary. God listens to our protests despite our anger and disillusionment. God empathizes with our suffering through the incarnation despite our sense that no one has suffered like we have. God reigns over his world despite the seeming chaos. God will defeat suffering and renew his creation despite its current tragic condition. The story carries hope in its bosom and it is with hope that we grieve.

Mack could not “imagine any final outcome that would justify” all the evil in the world. This is something that Mack says before he sits on the judgment seat before Sophia, but it is a function of the judgment seat to decide what would justify evil and would not. If humans can’t imagine it, then it can’t be possible, right? And that is the crux of the problem—human imagination has become the norm rather than trusting God’s wisdom and knowledge that is beyond searching out, plotting or understanding.

Human imagination or trust in divine wisdom? Which shall we choose? The former, as a criterion, excludes the latter. The latter is patient with the former’s limitations.

But trust is the fundamental problem. At the root of distrust is the suspicion, as Papa tells Mack, “that you don’t think that I am good” (p. 126). We humans tend to trust our own imagination (or rationality) more than we trust God’s goodness. We doubt that “everything—the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives—is all covered by [God’s] goodness” (p. 126).

In one of the most powerful scenes in The Shack Papa acknowledges that he could “have prevented what happened to Missy.” He “could have chosen to actively interfere in her circumstance,” but he decided not to do it (p. 222). Only love enabled Mack to trust God with that decision.

We can’t imagine what could possibly justify evil? But, at one level, that is the wrong question. God’s purpose is not to justify it, but to redeem it (p. 127).

My favorite scene in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ is when Jesus, carrying the cross, falls to his knees under its weight. His mother runs to him and their eyes lock. With blood streaming down his cheeks and holding the symbol of Roman power and violence, Jesus says, “Behold, mother, I make all things new.”

This is the promise of God—a new creation, new heavens and a new earth in a new Jerusalem. There the old order will pass away and the voice of God will declare: “I am making everything new” (Revelation 21:5a).

A day is coming when there will be “no more curse” (Revelation 22:3). There will be no more darkness–the glory of God will fill the earth with light. There will be no more violence–the nations will receive healing and walk by its light. There will be no more death, mourning or tears–the Tree of Life and the Water of Life will nourish the people of God forever.

That renewal, however, is not simply future but is already present. Hope saves us even now. As the Father pours out his love into our hearts by his Spirit, includes us in the Triune fellowship at his breakfast table, and walks with us in our suffering, we can experience the joy of relationship, the peace of love and the hope of renewal.

Mack discovered it when he learned to trust. We will too.


God and Evil: Can God Be Justified?

May 21, 2012

May 21 is a dark day in my own history. Joshua died eleven years ago today at the age of sixteen. I offer this chapter out of my ebook on The Shack and spiritual recovery in his honor.

********

Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Romans 11:33-34 (NIV)

The death of a child, especially the brutal murder of Missy, raises passionate questions about God’s handling of the world. Mack’s “last comment” to the Triune God around the breakfast table on that first morning was something we have all thought at one time or another: “I just can’t imagine any final outcome that would justify all this” (p. 127).

There it is. Bold. In God’s face. It is almost a gauntlet challenging God’s own imagination, his own resources—his wisdom and knowledge. Can anything justify the evil in the world?

This is the problem of theodicy, that is, the justification of God. Why does God create a world in which evil is so pervasive, strong and unruly? Why does he give evil this space to grow? When a cyclone kills over 130,000 in Myanmar, an earthquake snuffs out the lives of 80,000 more in China, and a tsunami kills about 20,000 in Japan, I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

When my son dies of a genetic disorder after watching him slowly degenerate over ten years and I learn of the tragic death of a friend’s son (John Robert Dobbs)—both dying on the same date, May 21—I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

How could I possibly defend any of that? I suppose I could remove God from responsibility by disconnecting him from his creation but I would then still have a God who decided to be a Deist. That’s no comfort—it renders God malevolent or at least disinterested. I prefer to say God is involved and he decides to permit (even cause–though I would have no way of knowing which is the case in any particular circumstance) suffering. I would prefer to hold God responsible for the world he created and how the world proceeds.

I’m tired of defending him. Does God really need my feeble, finite, and fallible arguments in his defense? Perhaps some need to hear a defense—maybe it would help, but I also know it is woefully inadequate at many levels. God does not need my defense as much as God needs to encounter people in their crises. My arguments will not make the difference; only God’s presence will.

I know the theodices and I have attempted them myself. Young utilizes a few of them. A free-will theodicy that roots evil in the free choices of human beings does not help me with earthquakes, genetics and cyclones. It certainly does not explain why God does not answer the prayers of his people with compassionate protection from such. A soul-making theodicy that says God permits evil to develop our characters does not explain the quantity and quality of suffering in the world. Suffering sometimes breaks souls rather than making them. There are other theodicies and combinations, but I find them all pastorally inadequate and rationally unsatisfying.

My rationalizations have all shipwrecked on the rocks of experience in a hurting and painful world. The way I most often approach God in the midst of suffering is now protest, a form of lament.

Does God have a good reason for the pervasive and seemingly gratuitous nature of suffering in the world? I hope he does—I even believe he does, but I don’t know what the reasons are nor do I know anyone who does. My hope is not the conclusion of a well-reasoned, solid inductive/deductive argument but is rather the desperate cry of the sufferer who trusts that the Creator has good intentions and purposes for his creation. I believe there is a Grand Purpose that overcomes the Great Sadness.

Lament is not exactly a theodicy, but it is my response to suffering. It contains my complaint that God is not doing more (Psalm 74:11), my questions about “how long?” (Psalm 13:1), my demand to have my “Why?” questions answered (Psalm 44:24), and my disillusionment with God’s handling of the world (Job 21, 23-24). It is what I feel; it is my only “rational” response to suffering.

I realize that I am a lowly creature whose limitations should relativize my protest (as when God came to Job). But, as with Job and the Psalmists, I continue to lament—I continue because I have divine permission to do so! Of all “people,” I must be honest with God, right? I recognize that my feeble laments cannot grasp the transcendent glory of the one who created the world and I realize that were God to speak he would say to me something of what he told Job. But until he speaks….until he comforts…until he transforms the world, I will continue to speak, lament and protest.

But that response is itself insufficient. I protest, but I must also act.

As one who believes the story of Jesus, I trust that God intends to redeem, heal and renew this world. As a disciple of Jesus, I am committed to imitate his compassion for the hurting, participate in the healing, and sacrifice for redemption. I am, however, at this point an impatient disciple.

Does this mean that there are no comforting “words” for the sufferer? No, I think the story itself is a comfort; we have a story to tell but we must tell it without rationalizing or minimizing creation’s pain. We have a story to tell about God, Israel and Jesus. God loves us despite the seeming evidence to the contrary. God listens to our protests despite our anger and disillusionment. God empathizes with our suffering through the incarnation despite our sense that no one has suffered like we have. God reigns over his world despite the seeming chaos. God will defeat suffering and renew his creation despite its current tragic condition. The story carries hope in its bosom and it is with hope that we grieve.

Mack could not “imagine any final outcome that would justify” all the evil in the world. This is something that Mack says before he sits on the judgment seat before Sophia, but it is a function of the judgment seat to decide what would justify evil and would not. If humans can’t imagine it, then it can’t be possible, right? And that is the crux of the problem—human imagination has become the norm rather than trusting God’s wisdom and knowledge that is beyond searching out, plotting or understanding.

Human imagination or trust in divine wisdom? Which shall we choose? The former, as a criterion, excludes the latter. The latter is patient with the former’s limitations.

But trust is the fundamental problem. At the root of distrust is the suspicion, as Papa tells Mack, “that you don’t think that I am good” (p. 126). We humans tend to trust our own imagination (or rationality) more than we trust God’s goodness. We doubt that “everything—the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives—is all covered by [God’s] goodness” (p. 126).

In one of the most powerful scenes in The Shack Papa acknowledges that he could “have prevented what happened to Missy.” He “could have chosen to actively interfere in her circumstance,” but he decided not to do it (p. 222). Only love enabled Mack to trust God with that decision.

We can’t imagine what could possibly justify evil? But, at one level, that is the wrong question. God’s purpose is not to justify it, but to redeem it (p. 127).

My favorite scene in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ is when Jesus, carrying the cross, falls to his knees under its weight. His mother runs to him and their eyes lock. With blood streaming down his cheeks and holding the symbol of Roman power and violence, Jesus says, “Behold, mother, I make all things new.”

This is the promise of God—a new creation, new heavens and a new earth in a new Jerusalem. There the old order will pass away and the voice of God will declare: “I am making everything new” (Revelation 21:5a).

A day is coming when there will be “no more curse” (Revelation 22:3). There will be no more darkness–the glory of God will fill the earth with light. There will be no more violence–the nations will receive healing and walk by its light. There will be no more death, mourning or tears–the Tree of Life and the Water of Life will nourish the people of God forever.

That renewal, however, is not simply future but is already present. Hope saves us even now. As the Father pours out his love into our hearts by his Spirit, includes us in the Triune fellowship at his breakfast table, and walks with us in our suffering, we can experience the joy of relationship, the peace of love and the hope of renewal.

Mack discovered it when he learned to trust. We will too.


Job 40-41 — Yahweh’s Second Speech

October 12, 2011

Why a second speech? One might think that one speech from Yahweh would be enough.

Perhaps it is a literary device.  The two speeches may reflect the two council scenes in the Prologue–a “prologue” (1:1-5) heads the two council scenes and an “epilogue” (42:7ff)  follows the two Yahweh speeches.

That may be true, but it seems like something more is afoot. There appears to be movement from the first to the second speech as there is certainly movement from Job’s first response (40:4-5) to his second response (42:2-6). However we may interpret Job’s second response (repentance? comfort? rejection?), it provides some “resolution;” it is a climatic ending.

The second speech, then, provides the context in which the Yahweh-Job dialogue finds its “resolution.” There is something new, something climatic, about this speech. Consequently, the question is what does this speech offer that was not present in the first speech so that it moves beyond it in some sense.

The first speech surveys a well-ordered creation that exhibits divine wisdom and care (Job 38-39). God is active within the creation setting the boundaries of chaos (seas) and feeding the wild animals. The creation is functional and fruitful.

However, the first speech focuses on two animals, the Behemoth and Leviathan. Of the two, the Leviathan gets the most attention (34 verses of Job 41 vs. only 9 verses for the Behemoth in chapter 40). Unlike the first speech, this discussion is prefaced by a lengthy introduction. This introduction functions as a hermeneutical key for reading the rest of the speech, and the Leviathan section serves as the highlight (it is the most lengthy treatment of any of God’s creatures in all the Yahweh speeches)–the climatic point of the Yahweh speeches.  The speech may be outlined in this fashion.

  • God challenges Job (40:7; parallel to 38:3)
  • Introduction:  the Wicked (40:8-14)
  • Land Animal: the Behemoth (40:15-24)
  • Water Animal:  the Leviathan (41:1-34)

Each section grows in length, and each provides a context for the next.  What would Job with the wicked? What would Job do with the Behemoth? What, then, would Job do with the Leviathan? Job is powerless before them all. But God is not.

First Section (40:8-14)

The topic is no loner simply management of the creation or how God has ordered the cosmos. Now the topic is about justice; it is about the problem of evil.

Will Job put God in the “wrong” (misphat; justice) so that Job might be in the “right” (zadaq; righteousness)? Job had accused God of denying him justice (misphat; Job 27:2) and had claimed his own “rightness” (zadaq; Job 9:20). Yahweh questions whether Job’s rightness and divine justice are incongruent. Can Job discern this mystery? Can Job figure out how God’s justice and Job’s righteousness work in the circumstance of his own experience of chaos and suffering?

In particular, Yahweh is concerned with the question of the prosperity of the wicked. Job has raised this question on several occasions (cf. 21:7-16; 24:1-12; “there is no justice” [misphat] in 19:7).  Yahweh’s challenge is to question Job about what he will do with the wicked. Would Job pour out his wrath on the proud? Would Job trample the wicked where they stand? How would Job handle the wicked? Decked out in his own glory and splendor, can Job solve the problem of justice and equity in the world? If Job has a solution, God wants to hear it.

Yahweh’s response to his rhetorical questions cannot be overestimated (41:14).  Yahweh will acknowledge (yada; know) Job if his own “hand” can save him from the wicked. The use of the word “hand” is important as it recalls the prologue and the significant Yahweh confession by Job in 12:9.  The “hand” of Yahweh released the chaotic powers upon Job, both the moral acts by human agents and natural disasters. Job acknowledged that it was the “hand” of Yahweh that did it and reigns in the cosmos.

Whose “hand” can control the wicked? Whose “hand” can best deal with evil in the world?Whose “hand” is sovereign over the chaos in the world? Is it Job’s “hand” or is it Yahweh’s?

Yahweh’s exhibits A & B, the Behemoth and Leviathan, are evidence that only Yahweh’s hand can control evil; only Yahweh is sovereign over the chaos in the world.

Behemoth (40:15-24)

Behemoth (a transliteration of Hebrew word) is the plural of the normal word for “beast, animal.” But the plural here is majestic in character, that is, it the “beast of beasts.” Indeed, it is the “first of the great acts of God” (40:19). It is the beast par excellence–incomparable to other beasts or land animals.

Yet, the description of this beast is very different from Yahweh’s depictions in Job 39. There are no mythic or hyperbolic embellishments of the wild animals in Job 39 but they abound here for both the Behemoth and the Leviathan. Further, Job 39 utilizes the normal names of the animals, but these two natures are not “normal” zoological descriptions. These are no mere description of another animal–if it is, then it does not amount to much more than what chapter thirty-nine did. Something more is going on here, especially regarding Yahweh’s relation to evil (the wicked).

Many identify the Behemoth with the hippopotamus just as they identify the Leviathan with the crocodile. There are some reasons to do this as the descriptions do seem rooted in those two animals to some degree. However, neither description fits a mere naturalistic understanding of these animals. Rather, the descriptions have mythic proportions.

Both the hippopotamus and crocodile appear in Egyptian mythology. There the evil Lord Seth is associated with both in mythic stories as Seth battles Horus. Seth is the god of chaos. In addition, Ugarit Canaanite myths may form something of the background here as well. In those myths Mot, the god of death, battles Baal. Many of the descriptions of the Behemoth correspond with language describing Mot (Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, pp. 131-137) and the Leviathan reflects the mythology of the great battles of creation mythology where the Seas (Leviathan as chaos monster) contest creation. The Behemoth is a land monster and the Leviathan is a sea monster (perhaps even similar to the two beasts in Revelation 13).

The Behemoth is beyond Job’s ability. “Only the Maker,” Yahweh says, “can approach it with the sword.” Unlike other wild animals, only God can do battle with the Behemoth. Yahweh announces the inability of humanity to deal with chaos.

Job cannot crush the Behemoth, so how could he ever hope to crush the wicked? If Yahweh can capture and tame the Behemoth whose ferocity frightens all other creatures, can not Yahweh deal with the evil and chaos in Job’s life?

But did God create the Behemoth, a chaos animal? Did God create chaos? The prophet Isaiah confesses that Yahweh creates both good and evil (disaster; Isaiah 45:7), and Job has already confessed that humans receive both good and evil from Yahweh (Job 1:20). The point is that Yahweh is sovereign over chaos; it does not have an autonomous reign within the world. God reigns over the chaos, manages it, and utilizes it for his own purposes.

Leviathan (41:1-34)

This mythic animal is associated with the water (41:1-2)  and breathes fire (41:19-21). Apparently, it depicts the mythic sea monster that generates chaos and rules over the chaos–the Leviathan is a prince in the world (41:34). Job himself referred to the Leviathan in his opening lament (Job 3:8). In that poem Job hoped that the Leviathan would reverse creation and destroy the day of his birth.

The Leviathan is a princely figure (and some even identify him with the satan). He has no equal in all creation and “is king over all that are proud” (40:33-34). Chaos (and evil) reigns within the creation–nothing under heaven can compete with the Leviathan (41:11). B he does not reign over the creation because Yahweh can rein in the Leviathan. Chaos fills the earth but it is limited, controlled, and managed by Yahweh as everything belongs to Yahweh (41:11).

Job cannot crush the Leviathan, so how could he ever hope to crush the wicked? If Yahweh can tame the Leviathan who crushes the proud, can Yahweh not crush the chaos and evil in Job’s life?

Conclusion

It is important to note that God does not, as yet (but will, cf. Isaiah 27:1), destroy these monsters of chaos. Chaos still exists within creation, but God manages, controls and limits it. Job is powerless before chaos, but Yahweh is not. Yahweh is sovereign over chaos.

The reign of God over the chaotic cosmos is the primary theme of God’s speeches to Job. Whether it is the gracious power of God to create and sustain his universe (as in Job 38-39), or whether it is the power of God to control and tame the chaotic forces in nature like the Leviathan and the Behemoth (as in Job 40-41), the point is the same. Job cannot claim to control or even know about these forces, but God does. God reigns over nature, and while there is chaos, it is not beyond his control. On the contrary, that chaos is at God’s command. It will do his bidding. The Behemoth is one whom no one can capture, but his maker can tame him (Job 40:19,24). The Leviathan is one whom no one can bridle, but he belongs to his maker (Job 41:11,13). No one but God can control the chaotic forces of nature, and we must confess with Job, “I know you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted” (42:2).
kdkd


Meeting God at the Shack: An E-Book

December 3, 2009

Now available on Kindle.

I digress from my “salvation” posts to announce a new E-book. I will return to the salvation theme once my work load decreases a bit which is quite large at the moment as the semester comes to an end at Lipscomb University.

Over the past year or more, I have reflected on William Young’s book The Shack in the light of my own personal journey into the world of spiritual recovery.  I found much in Young’s novel that paralleled my own experience.

Last year I posted on some significant themes I found in the the book–both in terms of pastoral (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and theological assessment (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)–but I have now completed a brief book with short chapters on The Shack as a parable of spiritual recovery.

For those who have read my previous material on God, faith and suffering (such as Yet Will I Trust Him or Anchors for the Soul), this book is a continuation of my journey. I think it is more profound and more mature than my previous writings on the subject. It is, nevertheless, still ultimately inadequate as an “answer” to the struggle of life, faith and peace continues in human hearts, including my own. Nevertheless, God offers peace even when there are no “answer?

The first part of this book discusses spiritual recovery while the second part addresses some of the theological questions that concern many. But even in the second part I am much more interested in how this parable and the theological questions it raises offer an entrance into the substantial themes of divine love, forgiveness, healing and hope. These are the main concerns of the book.

I think the question the novel addresses is this:  How do wounded people come to believe that God really is “especially fond” of them?

Only after reading the book through this lens are we able to understand how Young uses some rather unconventional metaphors to deepen his point.

My interest is to unfold the story of recovery in The Shack as I experienced it through my own journey. So, I invite you to walk with me through the maze of grief, hurt, and pain as we, through experiencing Mackenzie’s shack, face our own “shacks.”

I offer the book with this dedication:

In the past eighteen months many have showered their love upon me….
my employment—Lipscomb University and Harding Graduate School
my counselors—I have learned much about myself through your help
my church—Woodmont Hills Family of God
my bible class—the Sonseekers of Woodmont Hills
my men’s groups—where I continue to learn and practice intimacy
my spiritual care team—God’s gift to Jennifer and myself
my small group—you are all such a joy to me
my brothers and sisters—Mack, Sue and Jack…and sis-in-law Melanie
my nieces and nephews—Allison, Brittney, Ian, Carson, Logan
my mom—you love me no matter what
my daughters—Ashley and Rachel, both faithful and loving
my wife, Jennifer, for whose steadfast love I am deeply
grateful and without whom I would not be able to
share my story in this book.

They have embraced me and through them God has loved me profoundly.
Thank you!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: