I spent two days last week at a writing conference. It was a great couple of days, and I learned many things about the art of writing. (Like, apparently you need to know something about grammar! Who would have thought? [If you listen carefully, you can hear me exhaling loudly and rolling my eyes. Actually, the person leading the sessions who raised the issue was exactly right to do so. I think I am just frustrated that we have come to the point where that point needs to be made.]) All joking and then serious reflection aside, I learned heaps (like the fact that ‘learnt’ is an archaic form that is passing out of use, and I should always use ‘learned’). But I was also reminded of the rather strange relationship between words and meaning in the (post?)modern world.
One of the great gifts of that irresistibly indefinable thing called postmodernity is the insistence that nobody is a neutral observer. Whether you are a scientist watching an experiment or a football fan watching the game (and you can take ‘football’ to mean whatever you like, depending on your culture of origin), the way that you make sense of what you see will be affected by your bias. It’s a crucial observation for helping us to see through the false objectivity of many strands of human knowledge.
But it’s not really a new observation. Jesus said something very similar when he was talking to the Pharisees:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:42-45).
Our reception of the truth is never neutral: we believe what we believe because it suits us, our family, our cultural subgroup or … well, you get the picture. Sin works deep in the hearts of every person so that no-one is neutral. Sin is the ultimate bias.
But of course, without God’s eyes to see the world, what do you do with the observation that there is no unbiased place from which to find truth? There are many responses to that question, but my experience last week reminded me of a common literary response. In the absence of any neutral position for evaluating truth, I am free to become the one who decides on truth. So when I read, I read not necessarily to find what the author meant to say; I read the text to find out what it does to me and how I respond to it. So in a text with lots of ideas side by side, especially where some ideas are comfortable and some uncomfortable, I am free to take the comfortable ideas and relate them to my own personal situation without having to grapple with their place in the argument of the original writer. According to this position, there is ‘truth’, but it is horribly difficult to attain. And because of the relationship between truth claims and the exercise of power, the only way to guarantee that we will get something like the truth while avoiding those who will abuse truth for the sake of their own thirst for power is to make sure that every dissonant voice is heard. It seems that as long as every competing voice is heard equally and I am free to choose which voices to listen to, then I will arrive at the truth.
I have been trying to think of a name for this position. For the moment, the best I can come up with is ‘the grab bag of truth’. Thinking about the grab bag of truth reminded me of reading Tharunka, the student newspaper on my old university campus. Every year they would publish a feminist issue, and every year it was basically the same. There would be one article from a stay-at-home mum, and somewhere else in the issue, there would be an article about the oppression of marriage as a patriarchal institution. There might also be an article reflecting on the sadness of one woman who had had an abortion and another article talking about the importance of abortion for a right and just society. There was never any attempt to try and get the voices to engage with each other or to debate questions of truth. There was never any discussion about whether you could hold all of these views at the same time, or even whether you would want to. It was simply assumed that the only way to truth was to let all of the dissonant voices speak. Maybe it was only in the contradiction that the voice of truth was heard.
Interestingly, the Bible is comfortable with this position up to a point. The writer of Proverbs can say “Answer not a fool according to his folly” in one breath and “Answer a fool according to his folly” in the next breath (Prov 26:4-5). Wisdom is able to see that the truth is sometimes contradictory. Or perhaps, to put it more helpfully, the application of truth is dependent on our circumstances, and there is a time for everything under heaven.
But my question today is, “What does all of this mean about how we evaluate the truth?” The question has been raised for me by some responses to the article I wrote recently condemning The Shack. In particular, one man wrote offering to write a counter review of The Shack. He thought that I hadn’t been fair to the author by presenting the book so negatively. Shouldn’t I say something positive about the view of God as Trinity and the presentation of God’s grace and kindness in the book? Wouldn’t we be better served by a balanced critique?
My answer is no, and it is no because of the nature of truth. It is here that the limitations of the grab bag approach to truth begin to be felt. There are times when our decision about the positive or negative nature of something is not just a tallying of the pros and cons; you can’t evaluate something by simply summing up the positive and negative points about something, and seeing if you get more than 50 per cent.
The conflict between Paul and Peter in Galatians 2 is a case in point. Paul opposed Peter to his face because he had chosen to stop eating with the Gentile Christians (Gal 2:11). Paul would have had no difficulty in listing hundreds of good things about Peter’s theological position and about his long-term commitment to ministry. Surely, when everything was considered, Peter’s choice not to eat with the Gentiles was a small thing in comparison to everything else he had done and taught. Had Paul applied the grab bag of truth, he would have made a speech about Peter’s great contribution to the work of God over the years.
But Paul didn’t do that. He could see the terrible danger. The unity of truth meant Peter’s one action effectively denied everything he taught. More importantly, Peter had to be clearly and publicly opposed because of the position and authority he held. It would have been easy to believe that there was so much good about Peter, the issue of eating with the Gentiles was irrelevant, but it wasn’t. It was about the truth of the gospel.
The unity of God’s truth means we must be very careful about the grab bag approach to truth. The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs. Sometimes it is because they say so much that is right that we must reject their wrongs all the more clearly.
Such is the case with The Shack.
When it comes to issues of “truth” I am glad our architects and engineers seek to get it right in they way they design and build various structures.
Truth is intolerant of error – we take this for granted in so many ways (e.g. what the left hand side of the road for me is whatever I want it to be? 0.05 blood alcohol limit etc.)
Paul, please keep whacking us with the reality stick!
Hi Paul.
I am a regular reader of the Sola Panel, though I rarely comment, so please do not see me as someone who has stumbled across you and is just trying to cause trouble!
Your reference to John 8:42-45 is great, but you seem to want to apply it to how we view the truth. In some ways this is great, but in other ways it is problematic. Jesus was and is fit to judge the truth in others, but we are more limited! There is a sense in which your post sets you up as an authority on what is right and wrong, and that ‘the Shack’ is just plain wrong. But you yourself said that “sin is the ultimate bias”. None of us are free from this bias. I am not saying there is no right or wrong…but rather that God is the ultimate authority regarding which is which.
I would like to have read a more balanced review too. Not that I want you to weigh up the amount of good and the amount of bad and give a percentage, but rather I want to know what is good and what is bad in it. I am not asking you to accept what is bad in it, but it seems you want to throw out the good with the bad. I must say, however, that what you seem to think was very bad, I did not find so bad.
One criticism that I keep reading about the Shack is that it is a work of fiction that distorts theological truths. One review I read (I have read a few…) even suggested that Young had broken the commandment not to make a graven image because he has depicted God as a person. It is asserted that Young’s representation of God and the Trinity is flawed. I believe, for the purpose of illustration, it is legitimate for Young to do what he has done. After all, Jesus was happy to depict God as having two sons (in the story of the Prodigal son), as being naive enough to believe the world would not reject and kill his son (the parable of the Tenants), and that God goes away on holidays (the parable of the Talents)!
Yes, there are parts of the book where I do not agree with theological points made – but it does say some things that have needed to be said. This is why people, Christians and not, have found it refreshing.
You said, “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs.” You are 100% correct, how much right or wrong someone has does not mean we need to forgive them. Rather, as we have been forgiven, so we should also forgive.
The aim of this comment is not to change your mind on these issues, and so feel free not to respond!
Dave
Hi Dave,
Welcome to the public side of Sola Panel and thanks for being brave enough to post a comment. Everyone is welcome to say what they like.
I guess I would like to say a couple of things in response. Firstly, I guess I’d like to know why you don’t want to change my mind? If I am wrong then I hope you would want to change my mind. If I am wrong then I ought to repent and change my mind.
Secondly, I agree completely with you that I am as sinful and biased as everyone else and that Jesus is the ultimate judge. I guess I would like to understand more of what you mean by “there is a sense in which your post sets you up as an authority on what is right and wrong”. If you mean that I have expressed an opinion as if there is right and wrong, then I am guilty as charged. I am just not sure how stating an opinion means setting yourself up as an authority? It seems to me that Jesus expects us to evaluate the world we live in and to test the spirits.
Thirdly, i am just a bit confused by this comment “I must say, however, that what you seem to think was very bad, I did not find so bad”. Especially given that the whole paragraph following your statement deals with a critique that I don’t think I have made anywhere. I am in fact more than happy for Young to present a personification of God, that doesn’t trouble me in the least.
I guess that my biggest question is: what has Young said that needed saying? I have no way of knowing from your post what you disagreed with or what you thought was good about Young’s book.
But in order to help make my position clearer, here is my problem with the overall argument of Young’s book. His big point is that God loves people. He argues this point at some length. But if I might be permitted to summarise his argument, it is basically that God’s love means him not interfering in our lives at all. God can only be loving if he doesn’t judge (which the God of the Shack is adamant that he doesn’t do) and if he lets us do whatever we like. In other words God can only be loving because he isn’t sovereign and won’t judge. That statement is about as far from biblical truth as I think it is possible to get.
The Bible says that the sovereign God will judge the world but that in his mercy he has taken upon himself the punishment that we deserve so that we might escape his judgement.
My problem with The Shack is that the positive statements he makes about God in The Shack are contingent upon accepting a whole lot of untruths. At that point in time, I cannot commend the good things that he says.
I hope this clarifies a little.
Ooops, very unfortunately in the last post the end of the 3rd paragraph should have read “It seems to me that Jesus expects US to evaluate the world we live in and to test the spirits.” and not “It seems to me that Jesus expects to evaluate the world we live in and to test the spirits.” – You should always edit your own posts before you post them!
Thanks for your response Paul.
In response to your first point, I did not say I did not want to change your mind…it would give me great joy for you to change your mind! I just do not see it as a reasonable expectation from one comment…and I guess your response proves this !
Secondly, I believe that in your post you express some things as your opinion, but with some you are much stronger, such as when you said, “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs. Sometimes it is because they say so much that is right that we must reject their wrongs all the more clearly. Such is the case with The Shack.” I appreciate that this too is your opinion, but you have communicated it as fact, as truth. It appears to me that you are saying that there are wrongs (and you are the authority that has judged them as wrongs), and as a result “the Shack” must be spoken about in a purely negative context.
Thirdly, in your article you said, “It’s probably worth pointing out in passing that The Shack depicts God the Father (addressed throughout the book as “Papa…Young is not afraid to stray quite a way from biblical orthodoxy, and you could easily fill several articles responding to these errors biblically.” Perhaps I did not understand your point, but I interpreted you as also having concerns regarding Young’s personification of God and the Trinity.
I too believe in a God who judges, and yet I do not follow your statement, “Put quite simply, the God of The Shack, while sometimes angry at people’s folly, is never angry with actual people. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that his anger will never lead to judgement.” I believe in this statement you have interpreted something that Young has said as meaning that God’s anger will never lead to judgement, but anger and judgement are not the same. Perhaps I have missed something in the book, but you have failed to supply a quote from Young where your assertion is stated in the book. Perhaps this would be helpful if you could.
Finally, if I could clarify for you where I am coming from. I see ‘the Shack’ as being unbalanced in areas. There is probably an emphasis on grace, but not on truth…perhaps you would agree. However, I saw your article and post as having an emphasis on truth (this is very much the topic of your post), but somewhat lacking grace (e.g. “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs”). If we throw out all of, ‘the Shack’, we are no closer to a healthy balance of truth and grace (John 1:14).
I hope this is helpful. Dave.
Thanks for the interesting dialogue Dave and Paul.
The problem with what truth is exacerbated by the fact that we live in a postmodern society where the (ridiculous) understanding of truth is, ‘What’s true for you is good enough!’
I started ‘The Shack’ debate amongst some colleagues of mine and the very simple conclusion that I have drawn (and if I may pass it on here…), is that because the God of the Shack says so much that sounds so good, it’s much more convenient for Christians (perhaps new Christians…) to follow this God than the God of the Bible.
In fact, I had a conversation with a student; I asked him why he was reading the Shack and he said, ‘Oh it’s much easier to understand than the Bible.’
In other words, this story had become his ‘truth’.
The Shack is a mixture of truth, and imagination, and for people who have a very basic understanding of the gospel they’re not sure what to accept and believe.
If the author of The Shack had come out and said, ‘Settle down everyone; this is just a story,’ I’d be more comfortable… but he hasn’t. In fact he’s come and told us all about the terrible experiences he’s had with churches in his life, and pain and suffering etc… and how this has affected the way he views God.
And then old mate Eugene writes that The Shack has the capacity to change a generation like Pilgrim’s Progress… all of a sudden people are reading it as a good Christian book, or worse, replacing their Bible with The Shack.
Both of you, Paul and Dave, seem to be able to understand which parts of The Shack are reasonable (in terms of truth value) and which is just imagination, but not everyone is able to do this. They are blinded by their own suffering and desire to trust in a God that seems to be much more convenient than the God of the Bible…
I suppose I’d better get back to playing with the kids…
Thank you Paul for your excellent review and thoughts on ‘The Shack’. Did any of the Sola panelists get to hear Young speak while he was in Sydney these past two days? I wanted to but had other commitments.
Hi Dave,
Sorry to take a little while to get back to you. I have had a wonderfully computer free weekend!
Thanks for your posts, it helps me to understand the main points at issue. There are a few points, so let me start with the easier ones.
Firstly, I now understand what you meant about personification. I don’t think that my paragraph was very clear. My issue was not with the fact that Young chose to personify God but with how he chose to personify. If you are going to personify God, then the way that you do it is significant. What does your personification say about God? I didn’t have space in the article to go into detail about that point but wanted people to at least stop and think about the characters used to personify God and what they communicate about God.
Secondly, with regards to judgement. If I understand what you have said correctly, your statement is a good paraphrase of what I was intending to convey – “I believe in this statement you have interpreted something that Young has said as meaning that God’s anger will never lead to judgement, but anger and judgement are not the same.” That is what I think and here is why.
The God of The Shack seems to me to be angry at the way things are in his world (especially in chapters 6&7;). For example, s/he is listening to an angry funk album that hasn’t been released yet on p90-91 and s/he says to Mack the band has got “lots of anger and, I must say, with some good reason too”. God is angry, or at least disappointed in terms of an emotional state towards what is happening in terms of injustice in the world.
So in this respect God is angry. But s/he says over and over again that s/he will not judge the world, as in punish it.
For example God says on p 120 “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” God is not going to punish sin, that is not what God does.
The whole of chapter 11 – “Here come da judge” seems to me to be designed to say the same thing, although it never states it, it only implies it. God doesn’t send people to hell. This is entirely consistent with the message of the book about love and authority. On pg 122 (and around that section) God argues that true relationship involves no authority. If there is no authority then God is not the authority. A loving God will not judge.
The God of The Shack is angry about what has happened to creation. But s/he will not judge (i.e. punish sin or condemn people to hell). I hope that makes sense.
Because of word limits. I will end this post here and then start another one to take up the final point.
This is all probably getting too long now but I think that the question of grace and truth is an important one to discuss. I have a suspicion that we are going to disagree about this, but here I go. If I understand you correctly you seem to want to hold to some disjunction between truth and grace. If truth is properly tempered by grace then we will be godly. So, for example, it would be ungracious of me to ignore the aspects of truth in Young’s book?
I don’t think that truth and grace exist in opposition in the Scriptures and the application of both is necessary. Furthermore, grace may appear profoundly stern at points. To go back to the example of Paul and Peter, I am not suspecting that when Paul opposed Peter to his face it was perceived as gracious by anyone watching but I think that it was. It was gracious because the truth of the gospel of salvation was at stake.
But this way of engaging untruth happens all through the New Testament. Paul encourages Titus to appoint elders who will “rebuke those who contradict the truth” (Tit 1:9), who will ‘silence’ the false teachers and who will ‘rebuke them sharply’. Paul is scathing in his condemnation of the Corinthian church in most of 1&2;Corinthians. And in Galatians he wishes the false teachers would go the whole way and emasculate themselves (Gal 5:12).
The defense of the gracious truth of God requires very strong expression at times. When untruth threatens the very core of salvation then the ‘gracious’ response is not to sit back and say “this is my opinion, you can have yours”. The gracious response is to speak the truth clearly and strongly.
Furthermore, this means that I don’t think you can characterize The Shack as long on grace and short on truth, if by the word ‘grace’ you mean what the Bible means. Grace is found in the truth and the truth leads to grace. That is the point being made in Jn 1. Jesus reveals both the truth and grace. But it is a grace that leads to judgement for some and salvation for others because the grace is rejected by some (Jn 1:10-11. Paul makes precisely the same argument about the Jews in Rom 9-11. When God graciously displayed the way of righteousness they did not submit to God’s righteousness but clung to their own. The end is judgement upon them).
My point in this whole section is that when it comes to God, grace and truth are inextricably linked. And so to be gracious means standing for the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable and may appear ‘ungracious’. The strength of my statement about The Shack at the end of my post isn’t necessarily lacking grace just because it is clear and firm.
To anticipate a possible response at this point, I also want to say that the responsibility to speak trutha nd stand against error was not just the responsibility of Jesus or the apostles. I think that the charge to rebuke untruth is a responsibility given to church leaders in every generation – that is why Titus was to appoint elders to do the job of holding the truth and rebuking error. Rightly or wrongly, I take it that my job as someone who has pastored a church for the last 7 years and who now has an online role in pastoring people is to speak the truth clearly and graciously.
I am not saying that teachers and leaders by virtue of their position are always right. But I am saying that they are to speak as if speaking the very words of God. I said what I said, as clearly as I could, because I believe that God has called me to do so and because I believe that the God presented in The Shack is a false God, irrespective of the pieces of truth contained in the book.
In conclusion, I don’t think that grace and truth stand in opposition as biblical concepts. I understand that we can use them apart from the Bible to speak about a ‘gracious’ personality for example. But I don’t think that is the issue here. The Shack is not a slightly imbalanced mixture of grace and truth. It is lacking in the grace of God because it is lacking in the truth of God. I don’t believe that to say so is lacking in grace.
I feel fairly certain you will beg to differ
Thanks Paul (and Josh) for your thoughts. Please let me clarify, I do not want to accept anything that is not the truth, as truth. I hope I have not said I would. I do not believe that what is ‘true for me’, is the truth. I also recognise that there is danger in not speaking out against the truth. That is why I commented.
Paul, thanks for pointing out more specific examples of Young’s view of God’s lack of judgement. There are certainly some disturbing views there, though as you say, some are implied and not stated.
In one sense, I do not believe we totally differ in our understanding of truth and grace. My whole point was that truth and grace should and do work together, and when they exist in isolation, then we have a problem. I believe my view of grace is Biblical, but the reason ‘the Shack’ is not balanced is because it wants to hold on to grace, while losing sight, at points, of truth. Does this grace without truth equal Biblical grace? No, and this is my whole point. I suggest that your view of truth is not Biblical, because you have removed it from grace. One example is your statement that the gracious response is to “speak the truth clearly and strongly”. Yet, the NT appears to suggest Biblical truth is spoken with grace and love(1 Cor 13:6, Ephesians 4:15). Your statement suggests that as long as truth is spoken, then it will be gracious – but truth alone is not always gracious! Truth can be spoken in hate, anger and with a desire to hurt.
Finally Paul, to be honest, I originally commented because I felt your post lacked grace. It had loads of truth. That was its subject, but without grace. I believe that you have separated the two in the same way that Young has – just the other way round. I think this is why you said in your post, “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs”. I am not sure you could say this if you had a Biblical understanding of grace and truth. C.f. Matthew 18:21-35.
I too suspect you will not agree, but I pray that you might consider what I have said! Dave
Hi Dave,
I think that I need you to explain more clearly why it would be impossible to say “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs” if you had a biblical understanding of grace and truth? I am not sure that Matt 18 makes clear for me what the problem is.
I would also love it if you could explain what The Shack has said that needs saying. You have indicated The Shack loses sight of the truth at points, what points do you think those are and what should we learn from it?
Thanks.
Hi again Paul. I appreciate your patience with my lack of clarity! I would prefer just to deal with your first query…one thing at a time might be helpful for us!
With regards to how Matthew 18 fits in, it explains the only way we can forgive, and the only reason that compels us to forgive. That being that God has forgiven us.
I find your statement unclear (“The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs”) which is why I did not say ‘impossible’, and perhaps you can clarify for me how you can make that statement and hold a Biblical understanding of truth and grace. For me (with my current understanding) it raises the following issues.
*In the context of the statement who needs forgiveness? I assume Young? (You say ‘the Shack’ fits the bill).
*Who has he wronged? I assume us, or at least Christians with a weaker faith? Perhaps God?
*On what basis should he be forgiven? I assume (especially from the context) depending on him getting it all right, or not getting much right (after all, it appears to be because he has got a lot right that he should not be forgiven!).
My response to these issues is that the statement fails to understand truth and grace. It denies the truth that everyone needs to be forgiven, no matter how much they get right or wrong. It denies the truth that we have all hurt God and each other. It denies the truth that we are all weak in our faith, except for the faith that God gives us. It denies the truth that God is the judge.
Because the statement denies the truth, it also denies grace. It denies the grace that God is willing to forgive everyone. It denies the grace that Young is not forgiven because of his performance, but because of God’s ability to forgive. It denies the grace that we, as brothers should extend towards him, just as we have been shown grace (Matthew 18).
Perhaps you have a response to all of this which will explain to me what you meant, but in case you are going to tell me that you have carefully weighed Young and his words, and perhaps his lack of words (such as Josh mentioned regarding Young not saying it was just a story) and decided he is guilty and worthy of condemnation, then I would remind you of Romans 14, and other passages similar! As I said, it denies the truth that God is the judge! Your statement ultimately does not judge Young’s words, but Young himself.
Finally, you might say that all this does not mean that you have to read his book or recommend it. I agree. This of course leads us to your next queries, relating more to what Young has said that needed to be said etc. Perhaps we can get to this in a minute (or several days!), but for the moment, your readers have been given the message that if you make a theological statement in error (as judged by you), then forgiveness is not a certainty.
I hope this is clearer. Thanks again for your patience. Dave
Hi Dave,
I think that I finally understand (sorry for how long it has taken me to get there). The problem is the word ‘forgive’. I think that it is a confusing choice and ‘ignore’ would have been much better. Let me explain what I was trying to say.
I wanted to explain that the way to deal with arguments isn’t to add up the rights and wrongs and give a score out of 100. There are times where the nature of the argument means that the wrongs completely undo what is helpful and good. I was trying to point out that we can’t just say, because the book has good as well as bad, let’s ignore all the bad and praise the good.
I was not making any comment whatsoever about ‘forgiveness’ in the sense that the Bible uses the word for our relationship with God. I think that in the gospel forgiveness is always available. And I think that it is most definitely available for Young. I was not saying that forgiveness shouldn’t be offered or isn’t available. I was trying to say you can’t just ignore the error.
(BTW, I actually think that my usage is a possible English use of the word, it’s just that it unfortunately confused the issue. I wouldn’t use it again).
The last thing to say is that forgiveness and repentance go together. That is, I would dearly love Young to find the true forgiveness of God in Christ, but I think that repentance from his false teaching is required. The forgiveness of Christ is available for those who submit to his Lordship.
I hope that this clarifies a bit.
Dave, having followed your conversation with Paul, I would agree with Paul’s last post.
Forgiveness is always available through Christ and he is more willing to offer than we are to ask; indeed our apologies and repentance are also typically inadequate.
But forgiveness – as a completed transaction – requires repentance. Read on in Matthew 18.
I would like to see how you integrate the need for repentance from false teaching into this conversation.
The other thing is the NT is very clear that congregational elders/overseers, in particular those who teach, have an obligation to point out false teaching, and I think Paul has already demonstrated that but Acts 20:28-31, 1 Timothy 1:3ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:24-26; 3:16 & 4:2-4; along with Titus 1:9-16 spring to mind.
That’s what Paul has attempted to do. I think he did it with gentleness. He’s agreed that at one or two points he could have phrased things better.
Thanks for your last post Paul. I understand where you were coming from and that is cool.
Thanks Sandy for your thoughts. You said, “I would like to see how you integrate the need for repentance from false teaching into this conversation.” My guess is in the same way you would (more or less). Probably the real issue is whether or not I would see Young as a false teacher. I am not convinced (considering the communication trouble Paul and I have had!) that this is the best forum to talk about this. My main reason for posting a comment was because of Paul’s statement in his post, and he has explained what he meant clearly.
Finally, your statement, “But forgiveness – as a completed transaction – requires repentance” does have some issues regarding assurance. True repentance results in changed behaviour and direction, so has my behaviour and direction changed enough to complete the forgiveness transaction? I believe it would be helpful for you to differentiate between forgiveness and reconciliation. Forgiveness does not come with ‘buts’ attached (just ask Paul!). The consequence of someone who is forgiven, but continues in sin is that although forgiven, they will still face the consequences (yes – hell). I believe that this is what the rest of Matthew 18 is saying. No where (to my knowledge) does the Bible speak about forgiveness being revoked or contingent on behaviour. Rather, the behaviour change is the fruit of the forgiveness – freely given. Jesus told people their sins were forgiven without ‘buts’.
I’m signing off now! Thanks again Paul.
We’re getting off the original topic here, but on forgiveness and repentance I would point out Jesus’ words in Luke 17:3-4:
I think this is pretty good evidence that one can draw a distinction between a forgiving spirit that is kind and gracious to an offender, and forgiveness as a completed transaction. You might prefer to call it reconciliation and they are closely related, but Jesus seems to say here that forgiving a person is contingent on them repenting.
I have written in this topic are in a Minister’s Letter at my church, following a sermon on the same matter from Colossians 3.
Thanks Sandy. For me it was not totally off the track because it does relate to some stuff that has been written about ‘the Shack’!
Anyway, I read your link, very interesting. Personally, I think Jesus says, “if he repents” to demonstrate that there is no question that the brother has sinned (an issue you address in your Minister’s Letter).I still think the tone of the NT is that forgiveness is not contingent on anything, but freely given. As you said in your letter, “What Christ said and did on the cross – for those who’d rejected him – sets our standard for forgiveness… Colossians 3:14 says, “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”” There is no mention of repentance in these verses.
I fail to see forgiveness as a transaction, but as a gift.
You said that reconciliation and forgiveness are closely related, but your definition in your letter suggests that forgiveness is reconciliation (I think you said ‘restoration of relationship’ rather than the word reconciliation. I am afraid that this only confuses me more!
An excellent review of ‘The Shack’ from Scott Lindsey of The Resurgence http://theresurgence.com/the_shack_book_review
Dave (and Paul),
Just continuing to think through the topic of forgiveness, which came up in the discussion here.
I was struck by this post on forgiveness and its complexities – the horrific situation of a family, six of whose children died in a truck accident – where one of the contributors to the accident has said sorry.
The original story was published in Chris Brauns’ book Unpacking Forgiveness, which I have just ordered and received in the mail. I am looking forward to the read.
Here’s his definition:
Dave, since I have not read the book yet, I am not looking to debate further the meaning of forgiveness at this stage, especially this close to Christmas, although your comments are welcome.
Hi Sandy!
Thanks for the comment. I did reply a couple of days ago, not sure what happened, perhaps it was too long? Anyway, I will not go to the trouble of writing it again (I should have kept a copy!), but let me just say I would love to hear more from you about this when you have finished reading.
On The Shack check out Fred Sanders amusing but I suspect penetrating “five reviews” of the book – from various points of view including the naive believer, the literary reviewer, the worried theologian and even a haiku artist. It’s here.