Thousand Acre Church

Last week in Sunday school we were presented two options, drawn as two ends of a spectrum: Liberal Christianity (represented by The Shack) or Traditional Conservative Christianity (represented, I think, by Michael Youssef in The 13 Heresies of The Shack). This is how it usually works, you know. You are “with us” or “against us”. “In” or “Out”. Usually, the sensitive facilitator will dutifully include, “I’m not going to tell you which one is right, or how to believe. That is for you to decide.” This is how we have seemed to do theology for years in my experience in the Church.

I’m guilty of using this “either/or” presentation myself. In the past, while trying to manipulate someone into buying the intellectual crap I was selling, I would present it as an “either/or”. Either you believe what I believe, or you don’t.

A skilled prosecuting attorney might set up a defendant for a guilty verdict by telling the jury, “He either did this, or he didn’t. I’m not going to tell you what to decide, but I will give you enough facts and conjecture to make up your own mind. In the end, YOU have to decide.” Masking his biased perspective, he then attempts to stack up evidence against a defendant so the jury will make the ‘right’ decision.

Politicians will corner their opponents with questions that require either/or responses like, “Are you for or against the war in Iraq?”, “Are you pro-abortion or pro-life?”, “Are you for or against the stimulus package?” They won’t allow for shades of gray or complexities which relate to the issues. They insist that their opponents fit into a tidy box of one word responses. Are you with me or against me? (No doubt Jesus did the same thing in Scripture. Most of us would answer “We are WITH you Jesus.” Our behavior speaks louder that we are often AGAINST Jesus. See Matthew 25.)

Here’s my problem with this approach… Life is full of ambiguity. It’s not either/or. Regarding the whole Liberal/Conservative Christian thing: Isn’t there more to it than that? Isn’t it full of gray? To my Sunday school teacher, aren’t you really “deciding for me” by only presenting two options (one of which you seem to hold more faithful by referring to it as ‘traditional’)?

I think its offensive to put people in categories like “liberal” and “conservative” for the sake of intellectual efficiency. I think its offensive because it dehumanizes people. We can turn people, full of color and tension and ambiguities and uncertainties and stories and symbols and life, into dead, unbeautiful concepts. Concepts like “Liberal”, “Conservative”, “Evangelical”, “Capitalist”, “Socialist”. I understand that conceptualizing and categorizing people may be efficient for the sake of discussion, but it often leads to caricaturing and demonizing. It might work well for systematizing your theology, but it degrades the image and likeness of God in our neighbors and strips them of their individuality, uniqueness, and ambiguities.  If we are not careful (or even when we are careful), we alienate ourselves or our brothers from a Body of God’s people that should embrace the personality and character that is easiest to notice when our differences are freely expressed in a loving environment.  Labeling is not conducive to authentic expression in the Body of our King.

The Shack is a book which seems to introduce a lot of questions. I don’t know how you feel about those questions. I would guess that some people feel threatened by the questions, some are encouraged by the questions, some confused, some uncomfortable, and some just plain tired of dealing with them. The ambiguity in this book can be a place where we “do battle” and affirm that we are AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, or it can be a place where we affirm that we are WITH ONE ANOTHER through honest discourse and dissent. There is an either/or for ya. I’m not going to tell you which one to pick. (BTW - I’d be open to a third or fourth option like “We are KINDA WITH ONE ANOTHER.” or “We are WITH ONE ANOTHER HERE but AGAINST ONE ANOTHER THERE.”)

Regarding ambiguity and uncertainty and dialogue, I found this quote from Henri Nouwen to be encouraging:

I saw then that our spiritual call takes place in the midst of ambiguity and ambivalence and that if I waited until I had a very clear, final view of how things really were before I started saying anything, I would never speak. So here I am, a little bit unclear, a little nervous saying things that I am not competent in, but claiming the competence of the Christian to speak clearly and specifically in a time of crisis.

So, speak up. The Shack was written as a gift from the author to his family. It’s the author’s way of conversing with his children through a story. It assumes a response will come forth. It assumes that any response, favorable or not, will be given and received in a loving and open familial context. Let’s nurture that same context in our spiritual families by allowing room for lingering questions and ambiguity. Let’s embrace uncertainty as as healthy part of spiritual growth as individuals and as communities. Let’s continue the discussion as we act justly and love mercy in a broken world. Let’s talk about our questions with our children when we get up in the morning and when we go to bed at night. Let’s discuss our questions with Jesus and one another as we walk through life together. Let it rip.