I mentioned earlier that this was my main interest in the elections.
Here’s a study by Barna that has a lot of stats-I thought it was interesting. A few surprises.
And here’s some more research that asked some slightly different questions. Again, very interesting.
Here’s a BBC article on the future of the religious right. One of many that I’ve come across.
…Geert Wilders, a controversial Dutch politician, and Islam, which is growing rapidly in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. And let me tell you, those two just don’t mix very well. Wilders founded and currently leads a political party called Party for Freedom. He seems to elicit some very strong reactions, mainly for his extremely passionate stance against Islam (”controversial” is probably a bit of an understatement). He recently stirred the pot yet again with the release of a short film called “Fitna“; which graphically argues that Islam is an intrinsically violent, sexist, and suppressive ideology and the greatest threat to the Netherlands and Western civilization. Not surprisingly, Wilders is considered a hero by some, and an infidel by others. Here is a link to a speech Wilders gave just a few weeks ago, in America. I think you will find it to be rather eye-opening (he definitely knows his audience). It’s not difficult to see why Wilders is not appreciated by the Muslim world!
Wilders and his kind represent the extreme of one side of the debate. I really don’t know enough about the situation here in Holland to comment intelligently, but I will say this: Wilders’ posture toward Islam is not unique, and sadly it’s one that is often embraced by Christians-increasingly so after September 11 (or in the Netherlands, after the death of Theo Van Gogh). I say “sadly” because it seems to me that it all hinges on an extremely narrow understanding of Islam. I’m no expert on Islam, but from my (limited) personal experience with Muslims, which has been overwhelmingly positive, I think I can safely conclude that Islam is a little more nuanced than folks like Wilders make it out to be (just like Christianity is far more nuanced than folks like Dawkins and Maher make it out to be). If we feel compelled to judge millions and millions of people who adhere to a certain way of life (though I am a little baffled at how it is we think that God has delegated this job to us), the least we can do is give them the courtesy of not judging them by thier worst representatives. I know I would appreciate the same when it comes to Christianity.
But it is here that the argument come back around, and the question is asked, “But what is at the very core of Islam as an ideology?” Wilders believes that Islam is inseparable from jihad, and that ultimately a peaceful, tolerant Muslim is an oxymoron, for such a Muslim would not be faithful to what Islam truly is. For myself, I simply do not know enough about Islam to make that judgment. And I can understand, given the events of the past few years, why a person might be filled with dread as they look over their city and see mosques popping up everywhere and veiled woman walking the streets behind men. I’m not unsympathetic to that side of things; there are certain aspects of Islam that deeply concern me. (But again, let’s be clear: violence, intolerance, sexism, and ethnocentrism are human things, not just Muslim things. You will find them in adherents of every religion in the world, including Christianity. Whether or not a religion provides a way to overcome these things is another question altogether.)
But I can’t get away from this conclusion: even if it really is as bad as Wilders believes it is; if Islam is a dangerous political and religious ideology, perhaps even the most dangerous, posing the greatest threat, and we are more than justified in calling them the “enemy“-well…
We are still left with Jesus’ words about what we should do to our enemies.
Have you read The Shack?
What I find interesting about the book is the strong reactions that it elicits. People seem to either love it or hate it (and we’re talking about a lot of people here; the book has been on bestseller lists in multiple countries).
Christianity Today did a review that I thought was quite good; it nicely sums up some of the issues surrounding the book. (Side note: I usually stay as far away as I can from Christian fiction, but when I saw Baxter Kruger recommended The Shack, I thought I would give it a read.)
Both Becka and I finished it recently, and we loved it. Sure, I have my points of distaste (e.g. the book is quite cheesy at points), but overall I really enjoyed it- for its theology. Yes, it is a novel, not a book of systematic theology. Nonetheless, the book is packed with ideas about who God is, and therefore it is theological.
And, quite frankly, those who hate it hate it for its theology. Whatever other reasons may be given, and there are many, the bottom line is this: some people are not comfortable with the God described in the pages of this book.
The other side of that coin is that those who love it love it for its theology. The image of God presented in this book captivates them, intrigues them, heals them-you get the idea. Something in this book resonates very deeply with a whole lot of people.
Theologically speaking, I’ve always leaned more toward the ideas in The Shack then some of the other alternatives. So it wasn’t a stretch for me to appreciate it. But even if I found myself disagreeing, I think I would still be glad that this book was written. It has provoked conversation about who God is, and at least to me, that is a conversation well worth having.
I know a lot more could be said, but for now here are just two reasons why I liked this book:
-The Shack has taken Trinitarian theology mainstream, and by “mainstream”, I mean to a much broader audience than ever before. I believe (well, I’d like to believe anyway), along with this guy, that this is where theology is heading in the coming years. Actually, we’ve already been there, with guys like Kruger, the Torrance brothers, Barth, and Athanasius. But it’s possible to attend church your entire life and never hear the gospel explained from a Trinitarian/relational perspective. True, there is a lot more to it than what is communicated in this book, but it’s a great introduction to some of the themes. And I don’t care what theological persuasion you are coming from, surely we can all agree that the four spiritual laws just don’t cut it anymore. (Or maybe not…)
-I loved that this book went straight for the jugular. I don’t know of many pastors/authors who are willing/able to ask/answer questions like, “Where is God when my daughter is molested and murdered?” That alone would make The Shack a gutsy book, but the fact that so many people have been touched by it suggests that Young has done at least a semi-decent job of not only raising the hard questions, but answering them. We all have questions like this, because THIS IS WHAT LIFE IS LIKE! But honestly, how many people find satisfactory answers to these kinds of questions in their local church? How many sermons do you hear preached on the hardcore issues of life? My experience has been…not many. My own theological journey has largely been driven by questions that I have not been able to find answers to in the structures that be. That’s not an anti-church statement (which is one of the criticisms leveled at The Shack; that it’s anti-church); it’s merely my personal experience. But I think a lot of people probably share my frustration, and would welcome an honest dialogue, in church (or outside for that matter), on some of these issues. I appreciate that The Shack has opened the door for these kinds of conversations in a creative way.
If you’ve read the book, I’d love to know what you thought.
One of my favorite theologians is T.F. Torrance. I’ve only read one book by him, so that statement should be taken lightly (though I can’t wait to read more). But what a book it was. The Mediation of Christ has probably influenced my understanding of the gospel more than any other book I’ve read. It’s not an easy read, by any means, and I can hardly claim that I understand all of what Torrance writes. But what I do understand has really provoked me to re-think what I believe about Jesus and the gospel. Here’s one of my favorite passages:
How, then, is the Gospel to be preached in a genuinely evangelical way? Surely in such a way that full and central place is given to the vicarious humanity of Jesus as the all-sufficient response to the saving love of God which he has freely and unconditionally provided for us. We preach and teach the gospel evangelically, then, in such a way as this: God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very Being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ god has actualized his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby made you his own before and apart from you ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in such a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. From beginning to end what Jesus Christ has done for you he has done not only as God but as man. He has acted in your place in the whole range of your human life and activity, including your personal decisions, and your response to God’s love, and even your acts of faith. He has believed for you, fulfilled your human response to God, even made your personal decision for you, so that he acknowledges you before God as one who has already to responded to God in him, who has already believed in God through him, and whose personal decision is already implicated in Christ’s self-offering to the Father, in all of which he has been fully and completely accepted by the Father, so that in Jesus Christ you are already accepted by him. Therefore, renounce yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.
–T.F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:16-20
Pentecost 2005. Becka and I were leading an outreach to India. Our team was asked to lead the service at a local Nepali fellowship, which meant I would be preaching. A local leader shared with me that this was a new fellowship, and that most of the believers had never had any teaching on the Holy Spirit. Being Pentecost and all he thought it would be a good opportunity for me to share and pray for people to receive the Holy Spirit. Wow! Me? Not having preached much, I was nervous, but I was also totally full of myself in that horribly religious, hyper-spiritual kind of way. I imagined walls shaking and healings and tongues of fire and then (finally) everyone would recognize what spiritual authority I had. This was my chance!
I preached a very simple message on Acts chapter 2 and basically repeated the essence of what I had been taught in all my years of attending church, bible school, and working for a Christian organization: receive the Holy Spirit so that you can receive the power and the gifts. Not surprisingly, just about everyone came forward at the altar call. I led our team in praying. No walls shaking or tongues of fire, but there was a lot of shouting and bodies hitting the floor. It was a real Benny Hinn moment. As I left the service and walked back to where we were staying, the pastor walked beside me and excitedly exclaimed, “Wow, brother-that was powerful.”Yes it was. And it was all about me.
Not long after we returned from India I went through a defining spiritual experience (You might even call it a conversion experience-one of many that I’ve had!) I became aware of how legalistic and judgmental I was. Under all my layers of religiousness I discovered that I was deeply insecure. A lot of this had to do with my understanding of who God was and during that time something changed; my conception of God shifted from an abstract and distant judge to a very personal and relational Father. It’s not that this was a totally new concept for me, that God could be my father. It’s just that somehow it shifted from my head to my heart. It was like putting down one pair of glasses and putting on another pair. The old glasses made me see everything from my own insecurities and fear of God, the new ones helped me to see the world from the perspective of the Father’s love.
January 2007. We are in Burundi, and my heart is broken because the body of Christ is plagued by legalism, judgment, division, and worst of all, power. Not the power that points to Christ, but the power that points to man. Not the signs and wonders that bring the Father glory, but the signs and wonders that bring men glory. It’s a power that corrupts and divides; it destroys leaders by perpetuating a form of sensationalism that prevents maturity. For the humble masses, this power gives hope for a moment, but never more. This power is horribly religious and hyper-spiritual. It makes a mockery of a much greater power, the servant power of the cross. It does what Christ would not; it turns stone into bread to feed itself, captivates the masses with amazing displays of distraction, and betrays all that is sacred for the chance to rule over others. This power does not lead people to Christ, but to “Apostles” and “Men of God” and “Prophets” and those with great “spiritual authority.”
I know it’s not my place to change or judge others, but my heart is broken for those searching for Christ in this troubled land. God opens a door for our team to teach in a wonderful community. We begin a series of teaching on the person of Christ. It is very simple teaching, but we do our best to keep the person of Jesus the focus. We talk about grace, about forgiveness, about hope, about reconciliation, about relationship, and about a Son who stepped into our world and recreated it from the inside out, reconciling all things to the Father. We also teach about the Holy Spirit. This time I do not speak with much boldness or authority because now I know I understand very little about these things. We share what we do know: that God gives his Spirit freely, and that this Spirit cries out within us, “Abba Father.” The Spirit is the one who enables us to know we are children of the Father; that we are loved and accepted and included. We share that, yes, there are gifts and power, but that most importantly the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth; He takes from what is Christ’s and makes it known to us. By his power we are witnesses to the Savior of the world, not just in our words and wonders, but in our lives.
At some point in the teaching, a man wanders in from the street. His body is broken; he is full of pain and unable to even sit down. He listens to us speak about the love of the Father in Christ Jesus, and he is instantly healed. We do not notice him, and after the service he quietly leaves without saying anything. The next day he returns for the teaching. He patiently listens, and at the end of the service he comes forward to share his story. He talks about not only the brokenness of his body, but the brokenness of his spirit and the tragedy of his life. He explains that he heard the teaching from the street and was curious to hear more about Jesus. As he came in, he was healed. He did not mention me or my friend teaching with me.
He spoke of only Jesus.