Category: Uncategorized

Today I am leaving paradise to return to my normal life. Since I still need to work for a living I knew this day would come quickly. An amazing week on Captiva Island, Florida with my lovely bride and great friends was soothing for the soul.

I was so soothed that I completely neglected the tens of readers for the week. I suspect the net results of that decision was summarized on Sunday by one of my favorite comic strips, Pearls Before Swine. The intellectual member of the gang, Goat, is looking dismayed. Resident cynic Rat asks him what the problem is and Goat responds that internet problems have kept him from posting his blog that day. Rat goes to window, looks outside, ponders for a moment and then announces this little bit of truth.

“And yet somehow the world goes on.”

I am sure the world went on just fine without pithy comments from your humble rambler. As I reflect on a week in paradise one memory keeps coming to mind. We were blessed to be on the beach when a couple of folks pulled up to a marked sea turtle nest one morning. To our surprise they began to dig into the nest. Having an inquiring mind I asked what they were doing. I learned that the eggs in this nest had hatched seventy-two hours earlier. These dedicated volunteers had marked the nest over fifty days earlier and monitored the site everyday since. Volunteers watch over hundreds of sea turtle nests each season. When the eggs have hatched the men and women dig up the nest, count the hatched eggs and also the eggs that did not hatch. An average nest contains about 120 eggs.

But what happened next amazed and inspired me. While digging deep in the nest the volunteer pulled up a struggling but very alive baby turtle. Moments later another turtle with legs flailing was brought to the surface after being buried in two feet of sand just moments earlier.

Our new friend Sam explained how this happens.

“When the eggs hatch the baby turtles climb on top of the other eggs and each other to reach the beach. These little guys missed the ‘elevator’ to the surface.”

I was amazed that they could breath for three days underground.

“They found pockets of air among the shells that kept them alive. Now we will keep them safe until tonight and we will release them into the sea. About one of one thousand will make it to adult hood. And if they do make it they will use a natural GPS to return from the sea to this spot to lay eggs.”

In an earlier blog I wrote that I often find sacred moments in unlikely places. This was one of those moments. Later I thought about the miracle of those two little turtles surviving  despite very unlikely odds to at least get to the sea.

I thought about how it related to the message I tried (so far nearly anonymously) to communicate in my second book, “Bring’em Back Alive”.

That every believer is a precious part of Christ’s body. When even one is missing, the church lacks power and is less than whole. Whether we’re victims, perpetrators, or innocent bystanders we’re called by God to seek restoration. And when one of God’s sheep goes missing we have no choice: We must Bring ’Em Back Alive.

That message was demonstrated admirably by the sea turtle rescuers. Part of the survival of the turtles was related to their created will to live. But for those two particular baby sea turtles survival was entirely because two people cared enough to volunteer their time to pursue them. They cared enough to dig deep into the sand with no assurance of success. They cared enough to care for the babies and then give up more of their time to return to the sea that night to release the turtles to their destiny. And I suddenly felt saddened. Sad that really cool people like Sam will do that for baby turtles and that so many followers of Jesus can’t or won’t find the time to do that for fellow believers buried deep in the hole of despair and woundedness.

I was awed by the amazing drama of nature. Touched by the goodness of many people on this earth. And challenged by the thought that someone may be gasping for spiritual air today just waiting for me to care enough to dig a bit into their story and heart.

Today I am back to reality. Someday I will enjoy paradise that will make Captiva look shabby (what a thought!). But in the meantime I pray I will have a tender spirit that will seek, rescue and restore God’s wounded lambs with the same commitment that Sam and countless others rescue those plucky baby turtles.

 

 

I’m not gonna lie to you…I always hesitate before I write about controversial issues in Christianity. I hesitate because I know I will receive ungraceful responses that will cause painful memories to resurface. Painful memories of being restricted by the electronic fence of legalism. I have come to realize that many leaders choose that method of “controlling” the flock. Some don’t know anything else. Some don’t wish to risk the messy and dirty work of being a real shepherd. But the damage is devastating to trusting sheep who are wounded.

I knew that writing about The Shack would stir up some ugly responses from a few readers. Perhaps my disclaimer in the original post deterred a few negative responders. Perhaps some have simply given up on me. But most of the comments have been legitimate and thoughtful. I wrote a response to a blog written by David Robinson about my original article. He graciously responded to my followup and asked some fair questions. Here is David’s response.

Dave,

I appreciate your desire to address this matter objectively and compassionately. You demonstrate a lot of Christian charity to me in what you say, and I am grateful for it.

My question is this: do you feel (Tim) Challies’ review was in any way less than fully gracious, caring, and balanced? Or do you feel it was a model of the kind of gentleness and balance you wish to see from Christians in this kind of matter?

Response: This gives me a chance to make an important clarification. I feel that both of the articles I referenced gave a thoughtful analysis of the book from very different perspectives. My pleas were addressed to the angry and often strident comments I encountered on many websites and blogs. My desire to balance the debate was to offer both sides and some thoughts on how to communicate your take on the book with grace and love.

I have a less specific question to ask: is it wrong to disparage or even mock a book, speech, or other communication that blurs or even distorts essential doctrine?

Response: Okay, you asked me. I think it is always wrong to disparage and mock another persons point of view because it shuts down communication. That doesn’t mean you let it slide. I used Paul’s response to the citizens of Athens as my role model. He was ticked off by what he saw. I can imagine how it would have looked if Paul had addressed this situation like some ministries do today.

Dateline – Athens. Saint Paul announced a boycott of tourism to Athens, Greece in a sharply worded press release today. “The followers of Jesus can no longer support these godless pagans,” Paul declared from a protest outside the Parthenon. “God will judge these vile sinners.” Dozens of sign waving Christians shouted at those visiting the various shrines of false gods. Paul left the city and planned to spread his protest throughout the civilized world.

Instead Paul chose to stay and preach the truth in love. And the book of Acts reports that  some believed. I believe that God can use any communication of Biblical truth. He is, after all, God. But isn’t it reasonable to believe that we are far more effective ambassadors when we stay on the dual tracks of truth and grace? Getting off either track can be deadly. I have to be honest and tell you I dismiss anyone who mocks or disparages my views. If they show a shred of grace I respond and the results are often good. Wounded people will almost always go into hiddenness when they are mocked or disparaged. And they will take it personally if you mock or disparage something they feel is good even if your heart is to help or protect them.

I will just put myself out there by saying this: I believe every major heresy gets a large portion of the truth of God correct. But what makes it a cult, and not orthodox Christianity, is that it distorts an essential aspect of the God’s self-revelation in the process. All the critiques I have read take the book to task for exactly that reason.

Response: I agree. But instead of taking a sincere person to task I am suggesting you equip yourself with the facts about the book and then engage them. Ask questions to see how the book affected them.

“What did you like about the book?”
“How did it change your views?”

The answers will give you insight into their heart, their past and their theology. From that foundation you can come alongside that person and help them address what is really going on. Some people will simply see The Shack as a work of fiction and the doctrinal points will have no impact. Others will find some interesting thoughts and dismiss other parts of the book. That was my take.  I suspect that only a few will go off a theological cliff because of this book. I remember that there was so much concern about The DaVinci Code, The Gospel of Judas, The Golden Compass and so on. Each of those events had a much lesser impact than some feared. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent enough to test the spirits. We should instruct and not condemn those who are not discerning.

Thank you for your grace to me personally, and your candor with regard to my comments.

Thank you for the same. Isn’t graceful dialogue fun?

Another writer raised some good questions.

 Reader Matt posed a couple of concerns.  

I have a lot of mixed emotions about The Shack. Rather than emoting on your blog (I’ll save that for mine), let me just ask: what did you think of it? Did you think Tim’s assessment was fair? Also, in the interest of full disclosure, maybe your statement about author Wayne Jacobson’s response should include the fact that he is the publisher of The Shack.

Response: You just disclaimed Mr. Jacobson’s connection for me. Thanks. I liked The Shack. I love to be challenged in my thinking. Do I agree with all or even most of the theology presented? No. But the portrayal of God’s grace and caring was profound and can be helpful to wounded souls. God’s grace and love is truth. If we can get hurting people to trust that then we have a chance to restore many wounded lambs to the body of Christ.

And for (blog commenter) David, who said: I understood what the author was doing in attempting to get his point across…what was he trying to get across, exactly? Most everyone I’ve read on the blogosphere describes the book as giving them insights on God that they’ve never gotten before. Do you agree with that? And if so, does it bother you that people are getting insights about God from someplace other than His Word?

I think the message is simple. God does not give up on you. He loves you. Because of evil and sin bad things happen but God is not uncaring about those events. It does not bother me at all that people get insights from places other than His Word. I get insight from books, music, movies and countless other sources. I do have a biblical responsibility to weigh my insights against scripture and see if they are true. But God can speak through anything from nature to media to music. Don’t limit His creative and your own ability to find something sacred in unlikely places. You will limit your capacity for God to use all of His glorious creation to speak to your heart. Try looking for Him in unexpected places. You may be surprised to find Him there.

 

 

For new inductees to this site a brief update might be in order. The iPod Devotional Series is a periodic item that involves, not surprisingly, my trusty iPod and the shuffle feature. I fire up the device, go to the shuffle button, hit play and I write about whatever song is randomly selected from the 1,000 plus songs I have downloaded (all legally). My musical taste is quite eclectic so  this little feature is a bit risky. But we have already had a devotion based on Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar so how much further south can we go?

Today’s song is from a artist called Five for Fighting and the selection is “Freedom Never Cries”. Wow. The shuffle could not have been more timely. Writer/singer John Ondrasik has become one of my favorites. Five for Fighting’s new CD (Two Lights) is incredible. Ondrasik writes personal and powerful songs that resonate with me. “Freedom Never Cries” is a song about how we take freedom for granted. Ondrasik talked about the song in an interview posted at liveDaily.

It was definitely a statement song that has a point of view. I think it kind of speaks to the fact that, I know at least for myself, we tend to only appreciate things when we need them. The chorus of that song says “I never loved the soldier until there was a war / Or thought about tomorrow ’til my baby hit the floor.” I know I never started thinking about my future until I had my children. I never talked to God until somebody was about to die. My grandmother passed away last year–she was 93. She had a great life. It’s funny that I tend to find religion when I need it. Or when somebody’s sick. My dad had heart surgery this year, and it’s amazing how religious I was that week. Freedom’s similar. Growing up here in the bubble of the United States, we are statistically lucky to be born into this country where freedom, to us, seems natural. We couldn’t imagine anything else. I think sometimes we don’t recognize that. Freedom never cries. Freedom doesn’t sit in the corner and whine and make us recognize it, per se. I think if you look at the world in general today, many countries don’t experience the same freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women’s rights, freedom of the press that we have. Obviously, that leads to a majority of the world’s conflicts today. I wanted to recognize that, “Hey, freedom has a price, it’s not a gift.” It’s a little reminder to ourselves, we’re some of the lucky ones here.

The song is powerful. And the timing is sobering as we head into the celebration of the struggle to gain the incredible freedoms we have been granted. The freedom to vote. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. In a few months we face the awesome responsibility of voting. How you can even consider not exercising that precious gift? Freedom is like health. You don’t appreciate either one until they are gone.

H.L.Mencen once said, “We must be willing to pay a price for freedom, for no price that is ever asked for it is half the cost of doing without it.” Think about that.

And think about the lyrics of this song.

I never loved the soldier until there was a war
Or thought about tomorrow
’til my baby hit the floor
I Only talk to God when somebody’s about to die
I Never cherished Freedom

Freedom never cries…

Thank God today for the blessing of freedom. Thank God for the men and women who will not be home this holiday as they serve to keep our freedoms intact. I cherish freedom.

I also cherish another kind of freedom.

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.  Galatians 5  NASB

Cherish both freedoms as a citizen of the United States and as a citizen of heaven. And take neither for granted.

 

 

For the most part the responses to my recent post about the popular book The Shack have been thoughtful and graceful. Alert reader Kristie sent me a link to a response that she thought I would find entertaining.

The website is called postmortemism and author David Robinson made some interesting observations about your humble rambler. He decided that I am illogical, condescending and ignorant. Not much in that list that I can disagree with in the big picture. I have been all of those things now and again. I do believe that in this one little instance Mr.Robinson assigned a lot of motives to my blog that I was unaware of until he pointed them out. So let’s examine where I have gone astray.

In my article I suggested that followers of Jesus be careful about attacking the author of The Shack and to be careful about how we condemn the book to those who have read it. Here is a snippet of that point.

When his theology goes astray I am suggesting that we gracefully point out those areas and don’t attack Mr. Young. Defending truth with grace is always the most effective tactic. But our passion for truth too often makes grace the first thing we jettison.

Mr.Robinson decided that I had an agenda with those points about being careful.

The first two “Be careful” comments can be thrown out the door.  Of course, “careful” is only defined by what Burchett wants it to mean.  To him, it means not saying certain things that would dismiss the competency or veracity of the author and the book.  But those who disagree with the book are “careful” by examining the core ideas within and underneath the text to ascertain certain errors.  And it is very “caring” of them to share their “concerns” with others since it may prevent others from having a wrong view of God distort their thinking.

Uhhhhhh….when I said be “careful” what I meant to say was to be “careful”. The definition at dictionary.com was basically what I meant.

Careful…to be cautious in one’s actions.

That’s about all I had in mind when I chose that word. Since I wrote the piece I am pretty sure that to me I believed we could have a better dialogue if we discussed ideas and not attacked people. This was a part of my “careful” point.

Be careful how you share your concerns with others. When I read comments like “are these people just blind to heresy?” I cringe. Because you reinforce the feelings of so many people that are moved by this book. They have experienced a Christianity that is judgmental and sometimes downright mean. If your heart is to be a guardian of truth you will damage that worthy desire by harsh criticism of those who are touched by The Shack.

Later I made it clear that theological areas should be pointed out and discussed. I was simply asking for grace in the debate.

The next point really left me scratching my head. Here is what I wrote.

Be prayerful about why this book has connected so surprisingly with millions. I think I know some reasons why this book is resonating with so many. Those of us raised in the desert of legalism are desperate for the cool, refreshing waters of grace. Those of us who have been wounded by other Christians want more than anything to believe that Jesus does love us and our experience is not how it should be in the church. We need guardians of the truth of God’s Word but we also need those guardians to be shepherds that care and not just condemn.

Here is how Mr.Robinson received those thoughts.

The third command is based on the assumption that prayer and cognition are somehow at odds with each other.  It’s not enough to understand why the book is so popular; one must pray in order to have some sort of mystical conformity from God to grasp this unusual and mysterious phenomenon.

I am pretty sure that all I meant was to be prayerful about people that have been wounded, how we can come alongside them, love them and restore them to the body of Christ. Separating prayer and cognition never, to quote Tweety Bird, “ cwossed my wittle bwain”. The critique continues.

I love the fourth comment, especially the use of “Dogmatically”.  Who doesn’t have a worldview?  Who’s worldview doesn’t guide what they think and how they respond to different kinds of ideas?  Even ignorance and apathy are a dogma.  Burchett simply doesn’t like dogma that goes against this book.  Don’t respond dogmatically?  Ok…well I’ll try.  But if I read the book, and I don’t like it, can I tell someone “caringly” that they shouldn’t read it?

Honestly, all I really meant was that people hurt by legalism need grace. I have made my worldview clear in blogs and books. Where did I say that I don’t like any dogma that goes against the book? What I said was that this book opens doors to discussion that addresses orthodox theology and how scripture varies from this story. Of course you can tell people not to read the book. You can tell them whatever you desire and you will be accountable for your heart. I am accountable for my heart. The writer assigned lots of motives to my heart that are simply not accurate. I have no ax to grind with David Robinson. Seemed like a good guy when I perused his website. I just cannot understand how he made the judgments about my motives based on what I wrote.

I have had significant ministry success by looking for cultural open doors. I read the DaVinci Code. I watched The Book of Daniel on TV. I read the books by atheists and skeptics. That doesn’t make me special or spiritual. It is simply the ministry I have chosen in my very secular job and environment. I want to be prepared to offer a defense of the gospel whenever a door is open by cultural events, debates and even controversies. Paul confronted false gods in Athens. He chose to engage in debate instead of condemning the citizens for false ideas. And he addressed them with truth and grace.

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply troubled by all the idols he saw everywhere in the city. He went to the synagogue to reason with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and he spoke daily in the public square to all who happened to be there.

 He also had a debate with some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. When he told them about Jesus and his resurrection, they said, “What’s this babbler trying to say with these strange ideas he’s picked up?” Others said, “He seems to be preaching about some foreign gods.”

 Then they took him to the high council of the city. “Come and tell us about this new teaching,” they said. “You are saying some rather strange things, and we want to know what it’s all about.” It should be explained that all the Athenians as well as the foreigners in Athens seemed to spend all their time discussing the latest ideas.)

 So Paul, standing before the council,  addressed them as follows: “Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way, for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.

 “He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need. 26 From one man  he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

 “His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him—though he is not far from any one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and exist. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ And since this is true, we shouldn’t think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone.

  “God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.”

 When they heard Paul speak about the resurrection of the dead, some laughed in contempt, but others said, “We want to hear more about this later.” That ended Paul’s discussion with them, but some joined him and became believers.

Paul went through an open door. He was prepared. He knew his theology and he demonstrated grace. That is all I am saying about how we as followers of Christ should respond to controversial issues.

I disagree with the motives assigned to me by Mr.Robinson. But I believe that he has a genuine heart to proclaim the precious gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope that we can focus on what unites us as we both seek to serve our Lord.

 

Regular readers of these humble ramblings remember a daring effort called the iPod devotional series. It was daring because I would hit the random shuffle feature and write about whatever song came up in the sequence. Because of my weird music tastes the concept was fraught with potential peril. My marginal integrity was challenged when a song by Toby Keith appeared on the screen but I gave it a shot. Other events and ADD diverted me from the series. Today is author’s choice and the song is called Watching You by country singer Rodney Atkins. The song is reminiscent of a very poignant song by the late Harry Chapin called Cat’s in the Cradle. That song piled guilt on a lot of Dad’s in the 80’s, myself included.

Atkin’s song recalls his shock when his little boy drops a mild expletive after spilling his drink. The horrified Dad demands to know where he heard such language.

He said, I’ve been watching you, dad ain’t that cool?
I’m your buckaroo, I want to be like you.
Yeah, we’re just alike, hey, ain’t we dad
I want to do everything you do.
So I’ve been watching you.

The incident may be humorous but the principle is sobering. Our children learn far more from watching their parents than from listening to them. This little boy demonstrates that if they do listen it will usually be at the wrong time!

The song goes on to detail a great response to his son’s revelation that he picked up that language from someone very close to him.

We got back home and I went to the barn
I bowed my head and I prayed real hard
Said, “Lord, please help me help my stupid self.”
Just this side of bedtime later that night
Turnin’ on my son’s Scooby-doo nightlight.
He crawled out of bed and he got down on his knees.
He closed his little eyes, folded his little hands
Spoke to God like he was talkin’ to a friend.
And I said, “Son, now where’d you learn to pray like that?”

The answer is obvious. He was watching Dad as he had earlier bowed in repentance before the Lord. It took me awhile to figure out that my sons were watching even when they appeared disinterested or even distant. Thanks to a wonderful Mom and a lot of grace we have been blessed with three awesome sons. I have asked them to tell me what I did right and I also asked what I could have done better. Their answers were instructive. First, some positive things that our sons noted.

• We picked our battles carefully. Middle Son Scott told us that when we were passionate about an issue he knew it was important to us. We extended grace on most issues. For example, my wife graciously allowed the boy’s rooms to be a bit less tidy than she would have preferred. She knew that was not a battle worth fighting. She simply closed the door to their rooms and prayed for patience and for no rodents to nest.
• We prepared them to leave. Children are a gift that are entrusted to us for eighteen years or so. It is our job to prepare them to be independent and functional adults.
• We tried to model our faith during trials. When our daughter was born with a terminal birth defect we determined that our response would reflect how faith relates to life and especially to hard times.
• We learned to say “I was wrong” and “I am sorry”without “buts”. A wise person once told me that what follows the but is how that person actually feels. Parents must model that for their children.
• We carefully monitored friends.
• We tried to adapt to their unique design and not try to force them into our personal dreams.
• We attempted to innoculate them to sin. An innoculation is a controlled exposure to disease that builds up immunity to that malady. We felt that sheltering our sons from the world would not prepare them to live successfully in it.

But nothing is more important than simply living what you are saying. They are watching. They start out wanting to be just like us. For new parents and future parents there is no more important lesson than recognizing how carefully your children are watching you.

If your kids are grown or nearly grown let me offer a word of encouragement. I did a few things right but I also did some things very poorly. All three sons wished I had worked less and been home more. So do I. But love really does cover a multitude of sins. They have forgiven me for being absent too often. I hope they will learn from my mistakes as they begin families. If you feel you need to reconcile with your kids I would encourage you to do that today. Grace is amazing and redemption is always possible in Jesus.

Paul addressed the church at Thessalonica. He was trying to describe how he attempted to communicate with the believers there. It is instructive that Paul chose the example of parents twice.

As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.

Later Paul makes this comparison.

For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children…

And how does Paul describe those dealings? He says that they communicated like a father that is “encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory”.

That is a pretty good roadmap for a father to follow. Be encouraging. Comfort your child. And urge them to live lives worthy of God. There is no fooling them because they are watching. Always.

 

One of the dangers of Christian blogging is dealing with the spiritual hall monitors who seem to live only to smack your heretical knuckles with their ruler of truth. So I risk their wrath (carefully chosen word) with today’s post.

The movie The Shack has reunited a wave of debate, hand-wringing, defensiveness and condemnation in Evangelical circles. The book and the subsequent movie has been called dangerous, subversive and heretical by many critics. I didn’t know any of this when a friend told me that he really enjoyed the book and I should read it many years ago. Since I have a book addiction I soon was in possession. I finished The Shack and I thought it was a decent and often good read. I was challenged and touched by parts of the story.  And, to be honest, I was unsettled by some of it. After finishing the book I did some research to find out what others were saying about the book. Some of the critiques were valuable and thoughtful. These writers pointed out where the book deviated from scripture. Some of the orthodox theological missteps were outlined in clear detail. A thorough review of those concerns was written by author/blogger Tim Challies. I would suggest you balance that critique with another perspective to those objections from author Wayne Jacobson.  I will stay away from the theological debate because Tim and Wayne have done it so well. Instead I want to offer a few gentle propositions to consider for my fellow followers of Jesus as the discussion heats up.

1. Be careful about disparaging The Shack’s author, William P Young. Please be cautious about assigning motives to a person you don’t know from Adam and Eve’s first house cat. I know that I have been called things that were really surprising by my brothers and sisters in the faith simply because they disagreed with something I wrote. The truth is that I now disagree with some of things I have written in the past and I still think I am a decent guy. Mr. Young apparently was deeply wounded by Christians who should have protected him. I don’t believe Mr.Young set out to write a book that would rock the evangelical community. Apparently he didn’t even write the book with the thought of being published. It was originally written for family members to help them deal with their pain. It doesn’t seem that he set out with sinister motives to undermine theological orthodoxy. He is a fellow wounded traveler trying to reconcile his woundedness. When his theology is nonorthodox I am suggesting that we gracefully point out those areas and don’t attack Mr. Young. Defending truth with grace is always the most effective tactic. But our passion for truth too often makes grace the first thing we jettison.
2. Be careful how you share your concerns with others. When I read comments like “are these people just blind to heresy?” I cringe. Because you reinforce the feelings of so many people that are moved by this book and movie. They have experienced a Christianity that is judgmental and sometimes downright mean. If your heart is to be a guardian of truth you will damage that worthy desire by harsh criticism of those who are touched by The Shack.
3. Be prayerful about why this book has connected so surprisingly with millions. I think I know some reasons why the book and movie is resonating with so many. Those of us raised in the desert of legalism are desperate for the cool, refreshing waters of grace. Those of us who have been wounded by other Christians want more than anything to believe that Jesus does love us and our experience is not how it should be in the church. We need guardians of the truth of God’s Word but we also need those guardians to be shepherds that care and not just condemn. Some of the articles have been so stern that I felt like I would be sent to after school detention when the writer was done. That doesn’t help a wounded believer. Jesus said to both feed and take care of His sheep.
4. Don’t automatically decide you won’t see the movie. Why should you consider doing that if you believe the theology is off base? Because of a principle that I harp on over and over. When people open spiritual doors we should have enough sense to go through them. Instead we tend to slam those doors and then go knock loudly on doors that are closed. Obviously this book and movie is connecting. There is a deep spiritual hunger in America. If a fellow believer or seeker comments on the movie it will do little good to look down our spiritual nose and let them know the theology is all wrong. Instead I would suggest you see it and then engage the viewer. You will be able to get through some pretty intimate doors that this story opens and have a great discussion of truth and grace.
5. Be aware that God is doing just fine. I have seen some pretty dire warnings about this book and movie. One of the critiques that I read often is that the book makes God small. Aren’t we also making God small by being so concerned about the possible damage done by this story? God can, will and is using this movie. I agree the theology gets shaky at times. But the truth is that The Shack is causing many people to think about things they have never considered. Some are willing to try again after being deeply wounded. Shouldn’t we be praying that God will use us to come alongside these souls as they search and seek the truth?
6. Acknowledge that there are the things this movie does well. When you go negative it causes people to get defensive. It does more harm to make people who feel abandoned or hurt by the church feel “stupid” because they don’t know as much theology as you do. If you know that much theology don’t forget the grace sections.
7. Recognize the hunger in the body of Christ. While some of the theology in The Shack is askew I would suggest that the theology of millions of people in the church is also deficient. We have done a poor job of teaching (or understanding) some of the key teachings of Scripture. Most of us get salvation. We could not be reconciled to a Holy God on our own. But then it seems to get a bit spotty. Too many of us don’t understand key theological truths like who we are in Christ, who God says we are and who God says He is. We know truth but don’t trust it. What is in our head doesn’t invade our heart. The Shack has touched the hearts of millions. The door is open for a thoughtful and real discussion. I pray that we don’t blow it.

 Instead of taking readers of The Shack to the woodshed let’s take them to the room of grace.

Check out my newest book on Grace, Identity and Faith entitled Waking Up Slowly..

(Please accept this gently read previously posted article. Stay tuned for freshly minted blogs coming soon)

WASHINGTON – Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs, two studies indicate. The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick. That was the AP story that caught my attention yesterday. And I pondered the odd theory that these disgusting rodents may offer a clue to ineffectual Christian living as well. Let us explore.

Associated Press Science writer Seth Borenstein writes about the recent research.

The studies give more weight to a 17-year-old theory that the sanitized Western world may be partly to blame for soaring rates of human allergy and asthma cases and some autoimmune diseases, such as Type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. The theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, figures that people’s immune systems aren’t being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body’s natural defenses overreact to small irritants such as pollen.

The new studies, one of which was published Friday in the peer reviewed Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, found significant differences in the immune systems between euthanized wild and lab rodents.

When the immune cells in the wild rats are stimulated by researchers, “they just don’t do anything they sit there; if you give them same stimulus to the lab rats, they go crazy,” said study co-author Dr. William Parker, a Duke University professor of experimental surgery. He compared lab rodents to more than 50 wild rats and mice captured and killed in cities and farms.

A rat at a Brooklyn subway stop – AP Photo

Also, the wild mice and rats had as much as four times higher levels of immunoglobulins, yet weren’t sick, showing an immune system tuned to fight crucial germs, but not minor irritants, Parker said. He said what happened in the lab rats is what likely occurs in humans: their immune systems have got it so cushy they overreact to smallest of problems.

Challenged immune systems — such as kids who grow up with two or more pets — don’t tend to develop as many allergies, said Dr. Stanley Goldstein, director of Allergy & Asthma Care of Long Island.

Human epidemiological studies have long given credence to the hygiene theory, showing that allergy and asthma rates were higher in the cleaner industrialized areas than in places such as Africa. Parker’s studies, looking at animal differences, may eventually help scientists find when, where and how environmental exposure help protect against future allergies and immune disorders, said Goldstein, and Dr. Jeffrey Platt of the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota., both of whom were not part of Parker’s studies.

Parker said he hopes to build a 50-foot artificial sewer for his next step, so that he could introduce the clean lab rats to an artificial dirty environment and see how and when the immunity was activated.

That may be the biggest thing to come out of the wild and lab rodent studies, Platt said: “Then all of a sudden it becomes possible to expose people to the few things (that exercise the immune system) and gives them the benefit of the dirty environment without having to expose them to the dirt.”

A couple of thoughts immediately come to mind. First, how do you sell your boss on building a 50 foot artificial sewer? Second, I remembered the house that eldest and second sons lived in during their college years. Squeamish parents would stop at a gas station to use the bathroom before visiting the guys. We wondered why they were not sick all of the time. Now I realize that they were probably healthier than I ever could have hoped. These men utilized the brilliant strategy of creating an artificially dirty environment to stimulate a healthy immune system. It is always great when science validates slothfulness. And it is even greater when you can figure out a way to incorporate slothfulness into a sentence.

But how does this relate to an ineffectual Christian life? I think that the average Christian in America has also compromised our spiritual immune system by choosing a cushy and safe Christian experience. We have tuned our immune system not to fight crucial sin in our lives but to dwell on minor irritants. When you talk to fellow Christians are you passionately concerned about communicating the gospel to the world or about some minor irritant (person or program) at your church? Do we agonize over injustice in the world or petty injustice in our lives? Have we programmed our spiritual immune systems to battle pride and selfishness? Not likely. And by the way…I did not fare well in the pop quiz posed in this paragraph.

And the rats may hold another clue. I recently read a quote from an excellent book called Organic Church. The author noted that to reach the world for Christ we have to be willing to sit in the smoking section. I don’t mean to imply that all smokers are not Christian. The point is we have to be willing to get out of our “comfort bunkers”. 

Paul wrote this to the Roman church.

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Paul is not saying that we are to avoid being conformed to the world by isolation from it. We are instead to be transformed by the Holy Spirit renewing our mind. Isolation does not transform us at all. If anything, isolation makes us lukewarm. Because we can’t have a robust spiritual immune system if we live in a sterile sanctuary environment only. And that may be where the rats can teach us the biggest lesson. Our tendency is to stay in the sterile lab (church) and never venture into the sewer (lives of hurting people). We have too often chosen the safe route of turning on the light and praying those in need will come to the light. Some will. But most will not. Instead we are called to take the light to those in need. Jesus noted that in the Sermon on the Mount.

 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. 

When Jesus says to let your light shine before men I think He was talking about Monday through Saturday as well as Sunday. I am sick of Sunday Christians. I have spent too many years putting my light under a bowl. I have too often chosen the safe and antiseptic sanctuary over the authentic and often dirty sewer of people in need. I want my spiritual immune system to attack real threats and not minor irritants.

That scares me. But not as much as not pursuing that scares me.