Does The Shack teach that God is a woman or that all humans go to Heaven? Is the book more “real” or authentic than other Christian fiction? Has William Paul Young’s bestselling book, which is now also a film adaptation, been wrongly treated by critics and pastors?

Short answer to all of these triune questions: yes. But perhaps not in the ways you think.

In The Shack’s own spirit of “not in the ways you think,” let’s explore seven more lies Christians believe about The Shack, asking and answering these questions as fans of both biblical faith and fantastical stories. First, make sure you start with the first six lies here.

Lie 7: ‘The Shack has a single false/true view.’ No, it’s complicated.

Young continues to identify as the sole author of The Shack. The book’s actual authorship is a bit more complicated. There was even a lawsuit about it. In the end, author and publisher Wayne Jacobsen also speaks as the book’s coauthor (with Brad Cummings), stating flatly, “Paul isn’t the only author of this story.”¹ So the book was written/edited by committee, and only later picked up for larger distribution by Hachette Book Group.²

This joint authorship, like with some written-by-committee blockbuster movies, may help explain some of the clashing tones and ideas within the story. It helps explain why The Shack sounds so biblical at one moment, as demonstrated in part 1 and as shown here:

• “Creation and history are about Jesus. He is the very center of our purpose, and in him we [I would add: that is, redeemed Christians] are now fully human.”³
• “There has never been a question that what I [God] wanted from the beginning, I will get.”⁴ Here Young, et. al. implicitly denies the false “open theism” notion, that not even God can foresee future events and is operating with some element of risk.
• The Triune God doesn’t need others (including human beings) to be fulfilled. Instead, God lacks nothing, being already “love” among His Persons.⁵

… But then The Shack offers clashing notions such as that although God always gets what s(he) wants, s(he) either does want to allow evil and suffering for good reasons,⁶ and/or is helpless when an evildoer abducts and kills a child.⁷

Moreover, if one author (Jacobsen) says he does reject universalism, but another author (Young) very clearly accepts it, that puts a crucial religious divide at the heart of the story. Unlike the unified God the authors wish to explore, this trinity of human authors is not very well unified. Thus the book’s narrative voice(s) become unreliable and self-conflicting.

Lie 8: ‘The Shack is better fiction.’ It’s often poorly written.

Some fans of The Shack have praised the book as if it is better than most evangelical fare. I began the book at least hoping for good writing. But soon I sensed The Great Sappiness:

[Mack] hit hard, back of the head first, and skidded to a heap at the base of the shimmering tree, which seemed to stand over him with a smug look mixed with disgust and not a little disappointment.⁸

Yes, Mack wanted more, and he was about to get much more than he bargained for.⁹

Summer wildflowers began to color the borders of the trail and the forest as far as he could see. Robins and finches darted after one another among the trees. Squirrels and chipmunks occasionally crossed the path … [deer, flowers, fragrances, anything except city-based imagery that the Bible also favors to describe paradise (Rev. 21), and then …] The dilapidated shack had been replaced by a sturdy and beautifully constructed log cabin, now standing directly between him and the lake, which he could see just above the rooftop. … Smoke was lazily wending its way from the chimney into the late-afternoon sky … A walkway had been built to and around the front porch, bordered by a small white picket fence.¹⁰

This scene is identical to a Thomas Kinkade painting; The Shack has become The Cottage™.

But The Great Sappiness isn’t limited to the settings. Mack’s daughter Missy acts and speaks like an iconic perfect little girl, the kind seen in Sherwood Pictures movies (complete with tragedy like her Courageous counterpart). Ideas also smack of reality-denying sentiment:

• Forgiveness is not a moral exchange between human beings; it is primarily an emotion. Yet somehow you can still feel angry even after “forgiving” someone. Forgiveness does not even have real effects to restore relationship between people.¹¹
• Papa says, “There is power in what my children declare,” a nod to prosperity gospel and/or American-Christian dream teaching.¹²
• “It is a tree of life, Mack, growing in the garden of your heart.”¹³
• Also, ten points from Young for severely dated The Matrix references.¹⁴

Some may object: wait, isn’t The Shack more like Christian classics such as “The Chronicles of Narnia” that more fully engage deeper ideas and push imagination? Unfortunately, no, The Shack is not like the works of C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald and others Young credits for “creative stimulation.”¹⁵ Christians may like to drop these names for credit by self-association. But we often do not see why these classic works last while others fade. For example, Lewis believed in the value of old poets and myths to teach us, including the “true myth” of the Bible. Young gets this exactly backward: it is he who will instruct the old myths. He will put them in their place. And alas, despite all the story’s pleas for doctrinal humility, this is perhaps the greatest form of religious arrogance hidden in The Shack.

Therefore, I doubt the book (and movie) will have much cultural impact beyond Christian and nominally Christian audiences. It offers familiar images and tropes of the most shallow kinds of Christian fiction, only turned up to 11, yet offers even less biblical truth than those.

Lie 9: ‘The Shack deals honestly with evil and pain.’ It denies them.

The Shack’s preference for sentimentalism is clearest when it seeks to address the themes of evil and suffering. This is no false expectation by doctrine police, but the book’s own mission. Its cover slogan is, “When Tragedy Confronts Eternity.” The back cover promises:

In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant The Shack wrestles with the timeless question: “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?”

The Shack does not wrestle. It merely gives this question a mere slap on the wrist with a lace-trimmed glove.

Its ill treatment begins with a writing style that hovers over characters and does not go inside. We do not truly feel Mack’s sadness. Verbiage adds distance, not intimacy. His emotions even have their own distinct title, like an album: The Great Sadness.

Mack’s denial of emotions is also bashed into our heads with sentences like, “With every effort he could muster, he kept himself from falling back into this black hole of emotions.”¹⁶ (Really? So not confronting these negative emotions is bad? Or could this be a bit clearer?)

Perhaps worst of all: Any real impact of these terrible events—that Mack’s daughter is abducted, presumably raped, and murdered—is blunted by the story’s gross assurances: it’s not as bad as we think, God manifested to Missy to lessen her terror, and spoke to her heart, and Missy even prayed right then for her father’s peace.¹⁷ Here and elsewhere, The Shack refuses to show human evil and suffering closer to their realistic worst. Even as the authors teach us that Mack’s denial of emotions = bad, weeping = good, they deny us real reasons to weep. This is The Shack at its most sticky and saccharine, and I felt offended by its entire implication.

Even worse, all of a sudden, this one encounter with “God” fulfills all eschatological hope in Mack’s soul. “His constant companion, The Great Sadness, was gone. … The Great Sadness would not be part of his identity any longer.”¹⁸ “The Great Sadness is gone …”¹⁹ To be sure, happy endings should occur in books. But not like this, and not if you promise your book will skip past all that irrelevancy of corny religion and really dig its hands into the world’s crap. In reality, God does not heal our hearts so quickly. To claim otherwise is to tell a great lie.

What then of existing biblical, historical, and/or philosophical responses to the problem of evil and suffering? The Shack does not care for them. It does not let previous Christian teaching even speak for itself. Bad “seminary” answers and book-learnin’ lurks in the background, barely even allowed to fling a black cape versus the supposedly better answers Mack is taught in the titular shack. Perhaps the reader can therefore imagine their own villain back there (such as that one pastor/ministry/belief the reader especially despises). But this is not the role of a story that gets real and represents its antagonism brutally. It is the role of propaganda.

Lie 10: ‘The Shack doesn’t really preach that God is like a woman.’ In fact, it really does preach this, but not in the way you think.

Critics like to raise a ruckus over The Shack’s portrayal of God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, as semi-incarnate non-white women. In response, fans defend the book. Coauthor Jacobsen is among them and un-subtly suggests that “for some [the criticism] may have been more about ‘black’ than “woman’ …” Nonsense. Serious criticism has nothing to do with “God’s” skin tone, but with the notion that the other two Persons of the Triune God are in the habit of imitating Jesus and semi-incarnating as shape-shifting humanoids. ²⁰ But all of Scripture, the true myth Young disregards, shows that the Incarnation is Jesus-specific. “He is the very image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”²¹

Young, Jacobsen, and others insist the book doesn’t really teach God is a human woman. After all, Papa later shape-shifts into a human male one day because, as (s)he explains, “This morning you’re going to need a father.”²² So the defense goes: That’s just how God needed to be, to help Mack bypass his own stigmas of God and his human father.

But why is that necessary? The Shack doesn’t explain. Nor can it bypass the fact that Mack does not relate as easily to “Papa” (the Father) or “Sarayu” (the Holy Spirit) but rather to the male person of Jesus, similar to the Bible itself. God has already recognized our need for intimacy with Him, despite His initial holy distance from we his enemies. But He does not respond with female “imagery,” but by preserving His self-identification using exclusively male pronouns²³ and dwelling with us as Jesus—who is neither Father nor Mother but our Brother.²⁴

However, The Shack’s main problem isn’t the female characters. The author(s) have deeper intent: to show that there are “womanly” virtues, such as relationships, that are closer to God’s nature than “male” practices, such as power. The book doesn’t deny that women sin. But it does suggest that women finding hope apart from God and in human relationships is at least closer to God’s ideal,²⁵ while men usually behave worse:

“The world in many ways would be a much calmer and gentler place if women ruled. There would have been far fewer children sacrificed to the gods of greed and power.”²⁶

Mack shook his head and looked up. “So, I don’t really understand reconciliation and I’m really scared of emotions. Is that about it?”

Papa didn’t answer immediately but shook her head as she turned and walked away in the direction of the kitchen. Mack overhead her grunt and mutter, as if only to herself, “Men! Such idiots sometimes.”²⁷

This alone might not be bad. But the story offers no female characters who struggle with sin. Women are cast as God-characters or else human icons, such as Mack’s wife, Nan, who rarely speaks, or Missy, who only speaks angelic-evangelical-movie-daughterese.

Moreover, the story’s very notion of some virtues as “male” and others as “female” seem sexist even for a secular reader. Why can’t men be natural nurturers? Why can’t women be powerful and yet not sin? Is it evil for a woman to feel anger against an abuser? Must a woman or a man be forced into fake “forgiveness” of an offender who has violated her or committed violence on her? What if we gender-reversed The Shack in which a woman character confronts her rapist in a paradise vision and, despite having no felt or seen evidence that he has repented or that justice has been done, is compelled to “forgive” him?²⁸

The Shack simply doesn’t engage with a rather mind-blowing notion: God, not human beings, can hold all the virtues. He is the embodiment of each one, while on our own, humans reflect these in limited or even corrupted ways. The Shack simply ignores biblical portrayals of Him as both mercy and vengeance, love and hatred (eternally against sin and unrepentant sinners), distant/unapproachable and up close/personal (Emmanuel, God with us).

Lie 11: ‘The Shack doesn’t promote universalism.’ No. It does.

Universalism is the false belief that God will somehow, eventually, redeem all individual humans and will not need to torment some humans for eternity.²⁹

The Shack coauthor Jacobsen denies he is a universalist in very plain and helpful terms:

Perhaps the most problematic accusation is that The Shack promotes universalism, the belief that everyone gets salvation in the end. Some who advance this idea quote from Paul Young’s paper for a think tank written before The Shack. Even today he describes himself as a “hopeful universalist”. … When [Young] first sent me the manuscript, universalism was a significant component in the resolution of that story. When he asked for my help in publishing the book, I told him I wouldn’t work on it if [universalism] was his answer to human suffering. I didn’t agree with it and thought it would hamper efforts to reach the audience that would most benefit from the book. ³⁰

To his credit, Jacobsen contends a more-biblical view of eternal punishment:

I don’t have to figure it all out, but trust it to the God I know.  However, nothing Jesus, Paul, or John said points me to the conclusion that everyone receives salvation. In fact they warn of significant consequences in the age beyond for refusing God’s love in this one. I do believe God’s love is universal and his desire is for everyone to be saved, but that transaction involves a response from us.³¹

But Young is absolutely, in no equivocal terms, a universalist, and equally boldly states:

Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation?

That is exactly what I am saying!

Here’s the truth: every person who has ever been conceived was included in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.³²

Biblical Christians ought to respond in sober horror and repeat the words of the apostle Paul: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”³³

But if Jacobsen denies universalism and Young affirms it, what is actually in The Shack?

In a word: universalism.

Unfortunately, The Shack must answer for itself without helpful (and contradictory) input from behind the scenes. And by itself the story does support the heresy of universalism.

I found the universalism part in The Shack.

However, it’s clear from what we read that at least two authors wanted to have the story go both ways. Ultimately they seem to have settled on a political compromise. “Jesus” tells a surprised Mack (Mack spends a lot of time surprised), “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian,” as if this proves anything. To The Shack’s credit, he then offers a list of various religions and sins previously practiced by his followers. But then:

“I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.”

“Does that mean,” said Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?”

“Not at all.” Jesus smiled as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”³⁴

Again, The Shack is not simply fiction. One can’t resort to that rebuttal. It is a sermon, with “said Mack” and other attributions inserted to make it dialogue. The author(s) want you to adopt this belief. And this belief is universalism. No, all roads won’t lead to Jesus, and Jesus has imposed limits on His own grace (what they are is up for debate), and most roads also won’t lead simply to nothing. Many will lead to Hell, the place God prepared for everlasting torment for the devil and his angels,³⁵ and for unrepentant human rebels. If Christians write stories like this about where other religious “roads” lead, and do not care to mention the threat of God’s wrath, they are complicit in universalism. They are hurting and hating, not loving, their neighbors by allowing and promoting such a false teaching.

What I say next, I say carefully but firmly: Damn it to hell. May God grant these false teachers repentance, so that someday in the New Earth we can together laugh about all this.

Lie 12: ‘If you enjoyed The Shack, you’re a bad Christian.’ Tastes vary.

However: all of this does not mean all fans of The Shack should necessarily feel guilty!

Some critics of The Shack may imply that all its fans are compromisers or universalists. This is simply not the case. After all, I read the book. I’m not a heretic or a universalist. If you read the book, and you know that you’re not, then you’re not. Let no one tell you otherwise.

As I concluded in lie 6, you may feel very helped by the book. If so, great. Thank God for that. He can indeed use anything to work His will. Even false teaching. Even cancer.

You don’t need to throw away or burn your copy of The Shack.

However, please also consider this wisdom from Shannon McDermott:

Human feelings, no matter how spiritual they may seem, are not incontrovertible proof of God’s work; God’s work is not necessarily a seal of approval on His instruments. Maybe God has used The Shack, as people say, but you know, He used Pharaoh, too.

That The Shack makes you feel (correctly) that God is love doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong in other respects; neither does it make significant errors all right. And it’s not enough to feel rightly about God; we need to think rightly about Him, too. Even the feeling that God is love, without any feeling that He is also majestic and terrifyingly holy, leaves us stranded a long way from home.

Also keep in mind that Christians’ tastes will vary. Even apart from The Shack’s overall bad theology, I did not like the book. Many others will feel the same. But I can certainly see its appeal to Christians who’ve struggled with legalistic upbringings. If you’ve been starved for the image and themes of a loving, embracing God, naturally this book will meet that need—at least at first. But go “further up and further in.” Chase the stream to the Bible’s real truth of our perfectly loving and perfectly just King, who shows true mercy and justice alike.

Lie 13: ‘You defeat The Shack fans only by preaching.’ Wrong.

Finally, if you’re a doctrine-wonk like I am, and kind of like to pick on The Shack and other false teaching, may I urge you: chill out a bit. Mind your place. Literally, mind your place.

Imagine being in church, hearing a sermon error, and standing up to disagree. That’s rude.

Now imagine walking into a library meeting room. Here, several people are reading a book and discussing it. You ignore the circle, the chairs, the cookies. You bring in a lectern and portable speaker. You set it up, and commence to preach. Is this appropriate? No. It’s rude!

Many (not all) critics of The Shack are right to engage with the book as if it’s a sermon, because it is. However, they are wrong to try to engage with the book only as preachers.

If people are sitting around reading or discussing a book, then this is a book club. You can’t be preacher today. You must first be a human being in a book club. So follow the book club rules. That means you read the book (always a plus) and first, listen. Do your best to make people feel you are listening. Listen not only to the book but to its fans. Find the book’s good points, if you can. And always emphasize with people’s positive responses, while also acknowledging that God can use anything, even lies and cancer, to draw people to Himself.

Share your feelings too. Don’t be the clichéd Bad Male who Can’t Connect with His Feelings and That’s Bad. After all, when you only talk in “facts,” that leaves a legitimate opening for people to accuse you of simply “fearing” other ideas.³⁶

On the way, actually engage the book—really engage with it. I commend the “popologetics” method by Ted Turnau, which I have occasionally followed in this two-part article:

1. What’s the story?
2. What kind of world are we exploring?
3. What is good, true, and beautiful about this story-world?
4. What is bad, false, and ugly about this story-world, denying us the story’s promises?
5. How does the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ fulfill good promises the story can’t keep?

Point 4 is especially valuable, because The Shack values its own sermons over story, offers conflicting “truths” as well as mainly sentimental and fleeting beauties, at best flirts with damnable and false teaching, and violates God’s true love and justice (which are far more fulfilling). Before we even go to the Bible to compare The Shack with God’s own revelation, we find The Shack simply cannot fulfill its own promises to offer a better story about Him.

In the lately-renewed controversy surrounding The Shack, two defenses of the book, and now movie, stand out to me. Both are meant to silence theological critiques. “It’s just a story,” runs the first. The second is more varied and a bit harder to sum up, but it turns on how the book makes people feel, especially about God’s love.

These defenses don’t answer criticisms of The Shack; they dismiss them out of hand. They make me think of what Ravi Zacharias called his radio program: “Let My People Think.”

To dismiss criticism of a novel’s theology by pointing out that it’s just a story implies one of two things. The first is that stories can’t present a theology. As a statement regarding stories generally, this is wrong; as a statement regarding The Shack in particular, it’s absurd. The whole purpose of The Shack is to expound on theology, and it has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. No one who has read the book will doubt that it makes a theological statement with clarity and at great length.

I think, then, that It’s just a story carries the second implication, namely that the theology of a story is irrelevant. But once admitting that a story has a theology, how can that theology be irrelevant? A story’s elements differ in importance, but no element is simply irrelevant, and a story’s ideas about God are far from the least relevant. Further, stories have power in that they work through the imagination and the emotions, sometimes bypassing the head. A story’s ideas, especially about God, matter.

There might be a third, more sophisticated understanding of this argument; it may mean that stories shouldn’t be judged too strictly because their form creates limitation and an inherent ambiguity. Generally, this is true; specifically regarding The Shack, it isn’t.

C.S. Lewis, when he wrote a novel about a mortal demanding answers from God, set it in an ancient, mythical world that required something more imaginative and more allegorical than a straight-up discussion of Christianity. But The Shack takes place in our world, and it’s chock-a-block with straight-up discussions of Christianity. Unlike other novels, it doesn’t present its ideas through fallible characters, who might be wrong, or events, which are open to interpretation; it has the Almighty state its ideas in endless exposition. There are few novels more obvious in their theology, and any notion that that theology is beyond the bounds of critique is simply wrong.

Other Christians justify The Shack by how it makes them feel. I don’t dismiss the importance of feeling God’s love, or the value of a bridge between the head and the heart. And yet: Feelings are no justification in the end.

Human feelings, no matter how spiritual they may seem, are not incontrovertible proof of God’s work; God’s work is not necessarily a seal of approval on His instruments. Maybe God has used The Shack, as people say, but you know, He used Pharaoh, too.

That The Shack makes you feel (correctly) that God is love doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong in other respects; neither does it make significant errors all right. And it’s not enough to feel rightly about God; we need to think rightly about Him, too. Even the feeling that God is love, without any feeling that He is also majestic and terrifyingly holy, leaves us stranded a long way from home.

We live in an anti-intellectual age, where feelings are taken to be the basis of everything from moral truth to government policy. But Christians should swim against that current, too. We shouldn’t dismiss what a novel or movie says about God because it’s just a story; we shouldn’t be so carried away by how something makes us feel that we don’t want to think about what it means. Ideas matter, and they can be bad even when the feelings are good.

Let my people think.

“Frodo wouldn’t have gotten far without Sam.”

Image from www.fanpop.com

That line is one of the most touching moments in the Two Towers movie and an honest statement if there ever was one. When we think of the quest to defeat Sauron, Frodo comes to mind as the key character. Too often, we overlook the importance of the role Sam played.

He’s a simple hobbit, no more than a gardener before the quest begins. But during that quest he proves he’s one of the most courageous, self-sacrificing characters you’ll find.

Frodo, indeed, was fortunate to have Sam with him.

An Unexpected Hero

When it comes to Lord of the Rings, it’s easy to view Frodo as the hero. He owns the One Ring and he volunteers to undertake the quest to destroy it, putting his life on the line to save the free peoples of Middle-earth.

Exactly what you’d expect from a fantasy hero.

Yet if you think about it, the true hero of the story is Sam. In the end, Frodo falters, giving in to the temptation of the Ring and nearly causing disaster at the climax. Sam, however, never falls under that shadow. He’s the one individual who carries the Ring and avoids its power.

Without Sam to help and encourage him, it’s doubtful Frodo would have reached Mordor, let alone Mount Doom. The quest would have ended in miserable defeat, but at every turn, at every juncture where Frodo could have given up, Sam was by his side.

A Hard Quest Needs a Good Friend

Frodo’s quest was one of the most epic in fantasy, a journey of thousands of miles through every trial, danger, and hardship imaginable. He had companions along the way, beginning with his hobbit friends in the Shire, adding the Aragorn in Bree and the rest of the fellowship in Rivendell.

Image from lotr.wikia.com

He had friends to guide and protect him, yet along the way, circumstances separated them until only Sam remained. Think of the weight on Frodo’s shoulders if he had left the Anduin and trekked eastward alone. Thankfully for him, Sam refused to be left behind.

While we aren’t travelers on a quest, we are travelers in the journey of life, and life is far from easy at times. Just like Frodo, we face things that test us mentally, physically, spiritually.

It’s not fun, but having a close friend to come alongside us in sympathy and love is invaluable.

Loyalty and Love

As the quest wore on, a change came over Frodo as the Ring’s power slowly gnawed at him. The movies brought this out more strongly than the book did, showing the outward effects the Ring was having and the consequences for Sam.

Frodo became downright nasty at times, and Sam had every reason to abandon him—except he couldn’t. His loyalty and love ran too deep. Even if Frodo turned on him, Sam fought through the heartache and stuck by him as only a true friend can.

Image from lotr.wikia.com

I guess that’s the point. Some people may start as friends, but eventually life draws you apart, or something happens and they turn the cold shoulder.

But a true friend is one who sticks by you, even if sometimes you’re an ogre to be around. One who’s love and loyalty run deeper than your shortcomings, who will never abandon you to the shadows of Mordor despite the danger to them personally.

As Frodo found out, we all need those relationships. Life can be miserable, but having someone there for you makes a world of difference. Like Frodo, everyone needs a Sam in his or her life.

Have you faced something terrible but had someone there for you? Have you seen the power of friendship?

*Originally published in September 2015, at zacharytotah.com

Our guest this week is Linda Rondeau, author of the soon-to-be-released novel, The Fifteenth Article (Elk Publishing).

– – – – –

When we look back and then forward, we discover that the adage is true:

The more things change
The more things stay the same.

My soon to be released futuristic political thriller, The Fifteenth Article, takes place in the last part of the 21^st century, circa 2073, only fifty-six years from now. I thought we might take a drive down memory lane to fifty-six years ago, 1961.

The first year of the 1960’s proved to be a transition year—one that would propel society toward major political, social, financial, and scientific change.

Political Climate:

Political upheaval has existed since Cain was ousted from the known establishment of his time because he’d murdered his brother. A new hierarchy developed from Cain’s replacement, Seth. And so the beat goes on, as the song of 1967 echoed.

In 1961, America’s involvement in Southeast Asia ramped up. So began the divide between hawks and doves, a division that would define American politics for the next several decades. On the world stage, construction of the Berlin Wall became a symbol of the sharp divide between east and west, communism and capitalism, a free society and a controlled society.

In The Fifteenth Article, mankind is still in flux. The world survived tsunamis, pandemic, and global war to form a short-lived democratic global government called The Accord. However, the system was too weak, and a new government took its place called The Constitutional Government ordered by Fourteen Articles of Constitution.

Like all governments, factions arise that are dissatisfied and threaten world stability, including a would-be Caesar who has manipulated the constitution to set himself up as a new world dictator.

Where governments exist,
there will always be those
who will rise up against it.
Social Climate

The 1960’s was a decade of enormous social change, especially in the area of civil rights.

Much of what transpired in the later part of the decade stemmed from the early clashes of unrest and civil disobedience.

Perhaps the most famous civil unrest came from the Freedom Riders, who tested the Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia by riding racially integrated interstate buses into the South.

In 2017 the world population is estimated at 7.5 billion compared to 4 billion just 56 years ago. In my fictional world of 2073, the population is only 2 billion. Because of labor shortages, genetic engineering produced a classification of sub-humans called “memes.”

Since the days of The Exodus,
the human spirit has yearned to be free.
We who believe know such true freedom
is only found in Christ.

So do those in 2073, called Christ Followers.

Economic Climate

1961 saw the end of a ten-month recession that began in April 1960. Though the recession ended, unemployment remained high.

In the fictional world of 2073, cities comprise the largest economic centers of the world’s nineteen providences. Outworlds are inhabited by non-citizens. Some are defectors who gave up their citizenship for more personal freedom. The largest and most organized of these outworlds is The Network, a series of six communities formerly known as states. They have become illegally self-governing. However, the Network is the largest provider of food for the cities. They have been allowed to exist in return for a tithe of goods. However, their growth threatens the concept of a global government.

Since early history, economics have determined who controls what.

Cultural Climate

Culture has always been reflected in a society’s entertainment fads and everyday life. In a pluralistic society, conflict arises when one group forces their preferences or religious ideation upon another. In 1961, America considered itself a Christian nation. Most attended a house of worship or held association with a religious denomination.

In the fictional world of 2073, organized religion was blamed for a great war between Christians and Muslims called The Schism. As a result, society outlawed religious expression of any kind.

History has shown that the quest for domination has always been disguised in the form of outward religiosity. Those who follow the Lord know that true religion begins in a heart that has been surrendered to a sovereign God.

In a future world, with the demise of outward manipulation of what is deemed right Christianity, Christ Followers have set aside denominational differences and have banned together in common knowledge that God is still on the throne and remains involved in Mankind’s walk on this Earth. That as long as the earth endures, summer, winter, and harvest will remain.

Science and Technological Climate

Since the discovery of fire,
Mankind has adored the newest gadgets.

In 1961, touch-tone technology had been developed but did not come into wider use until 1963. In a future world, communications will be managed through a micro device, illegal for outworlds but still in use. The micro is a computer-like device that can be held in the palm of one’s hand and connects through the Mainframe.

In fact, in the domed cities, every aspect of life is monitored and controlled through the Mainframe. While crime is virtually non-existent, personal freedom has all but vanished.

Since the dawn of history, men have sought for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Will 2073 bring society closer or farther from this goal?

– – – – –

Winner of the 2012 Selah Award and Carol Award finalist LINDA WOOD RONDEAU writes to demonstrate our worst past, surrendered to God becomes our best future. After a long career in human services, Linda now resides in Jacksonville, Florida. Readers may visit her web site at www.lindarondeau.com. Contact the author on Facebook, Twitter, PInterest, Google Plus and Goodreads.

Watch for Linda’s much anticipated release of The Fifteenth Article with Elk Publishing, expected summer of 2017.

This week I finished The Shack book. For ten years Christians have debated The Shack. Now that William Paul Young’s book has been adapted into a movie, starring Sam Worthington and Octavia Spencer, we’re resurrecting The Shack book debate all over again.

Some fans praise The Shack as worthy fantastical fiction that honestly explores evil and suffering, and the loving nature of God with metaphors and literary devices. Critics say the book distorts God’s character and biblical truth, while at best flirting with false teaching or heresy.¹

Now I’m exploring this popular book, not just as a Christian who loves truth and doctrine, or a Christian who prefers fantastical stories, but a Christian who wants to love both.

Lie 1: ‘The Shack is a fantastical fiction tale.’ But it isn’t truly a novel.

I opened The Shack expecting to defend it a little. After all, many Christians don’t get fiction.

They don’t know what it’s for (a way creative humans reflect God’s creativity).

They have bad reasons to justify it (for “spiritual” means, moral instruction, or evangelism).

Then when popular fiction comes along, they react with fear or loathing, as in the case with the Harry Potter novels (which are great fantasy) or The Da Vinci Code (a comical “thriller”).

When The Shack released in 2007 and hit the New York Times bestseller list, Bible teachers piled onto this little book. At back of their criticism, they seemed to believe Christians really ought not be reading novels anyway. Many of the critics were preacher types. So didn’t they already believe sermons beat any novels any day? How then did they have any credibility?

But I was wrong. It turns out the preacher types, annoying as they can be, were right. They recognized The Shack is not a true novel. Instead, it’s a sermon dressed as fiction.

The Shack is like Courageous, right down to the cute little girl who dies. But even Courageous had more plot and character development.

Novels surely have religious views explored by human characters. But The Shack is more like other morality-driven evangelical stories (e.g. Fireproof or Courageous). Its characters exist solely to explore a religion. As fantasy novelist Kat Heckenbach explains:

What frustrates me more about The Shack than anything is that it is presented as a novel and it’s really not. It’s a book-length conversation. It is the trinity in human form having a Q&A session with a man who is struggling, but it is not a novel.

I feel this is an important distinction. It’s not a story into which an author has interjected a world view. It’s not faulty theology as part of a piece of fiction. The sole purpose of The Shack is to present the author’s theological opinions. It’s an essay written in a story-like style. That makes it subject to theological dissection. An actual novel has the purpose of telling a story, and while we can to an extent dissect the author’s message, we have to keep in mind that that message is only one facet. In The Shack, the message IS the entire purpose. I don’t think we can just go, “Oh, it’s only fiction, so no biggie what the author actually believes.”²

Therefore when we talk about The Shack, we are talking about a trinity of authors (William Paul Young, with front-cover uncredited Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings) who are trying to teach us a lesson. This genre is more like an extended sermon anecdote. So no one can touch the “base” of claiming “it’s only a story” and avoid being tagged with objections to the lesson.³

Lie 2: ‘Only legalists fear The Shack. Christians who like a loving God will like it.’ But graceful Christians also criticize this rather legalistic book.

Some (not all) fans of The Shack take a rather dim view of critics. For example, The Shack coauthor Wayne Jacobsen in this attempted apologetic compares their critics to Pharisees. Among some fair arguments, Jacobsen builds up several straw men. Upshot: if you disagree with this book, then you’re likely a legalistic Christian who doesn’t truly want a loving God.

First, this is manifestly untrue. The Shack criticisms have come from all over Christianity. Jesus-loving civilians, teachers, and authors who have spent their lives opposing legalism and teaching grace have also challenged The Shack.⁴ To cite just a few examples:

• Our own Rebecca LuElla Miller engaged graciously with The Shack, starting here.
• Author and former pastor Tim Keller gently critiqued the story.
• David Mathis, editor at the grace-based ministry Desiring God, engaged the story on its own terms, especially the themes of pain and suffering.
• Author Randy Alcorn has challenged the book’s theology, such as here and here.

Perhaps criticisms from angry, fearful, legalistic Christians are easier to hear in a crowd. But if Jacobsen is aware of these gracious criticisms, then it is Jacobsen, not the critics, who resists having his mind expanded by complex, spiritual-paradigm-challenging realities.

Second, this slander of The Shack critics is uncharitable. Just because a person looks like a sinful legalist to you, doesn’t make that person a sinful legalist. In fact, that very way of judging—by appearance, based on your own personal stigmas—is itself graceless legalism.

Third: alas, The Shack reflects the authors’ own binary “rules”-based faith. In the world of The Shack, you either accept their best way of seeing God, or you are a type of Christian who favors “religious machinery [that] can chew up people” or “politics and economics” that distract from man’s chief end, relationship rightly defined.⁵

Old religious fundamentalists feared movie theaters or pubs. The Shack fears institutions, churches with programs, or any hint of political influence. So if some critics are legalistic, they are in great company: The Shack itself offers a form of absolute, unyielding legalism.

Lie 3: ‘Everything in The Shack is a heretical lie.’ It teaches some truths.

More positively, any critic who implies or states that The Shack is only full of heresy should check himself. Do not so slander this book. Like many poor evangelical sermons, and even most secular stories, The Shack can reflect biblical truths and can be commended, such as:

The Shack insists God the Father isn’t white with a beard, like Gandalf. True. But loses geek points for using Gandalf as a negative comparison.

• Jesus “chose to die” and “saved us from our sickness.”⁶
• God isn’t a white man.⁷ (The “God the Father as a great white man” image is a stigma that apparently many readers share, though it has never plagued me.)
• “The truth shall set you free and the truth has a name; he’s over in the woodshop right now covered in sawdust.”⁸ (Bravo, The Shack. Many people misquote John 8:32 and the authors rightfully understand this is a reference to Jesus, not knowledge.)
• God isn’t like us, and is not simply “the best version” of man.⁹
• God is a trinity and exists as love because His Persons are in relationship.¹⁰
• God is not evil, and has good reasons to allow evil and suffering.¹¹
• Jesus promises to cleanse the universe; Heaven will come to New Earth.¹²
• Our desire for independence from God is the root of all evil.¹³ But we really have no absolute “rights,” not even to speak uninterrupted by God!¹⁴

It wouldn’t even make sense to claim The Shack has only lies or heresy. Wise Christians who believe in biblical truth have always also believed the most effective and believable lies are those mixed with truth. That’s why the apostles teach us to practice discernment. This means sorting truth from error, because the two are often mixed up in complex ways.

Lie 4: ‘In The Shack, God won’t violate free will.’ Not if you look closer.

That last truthful part, when “Sarayu” (a fictional representation of the Holy Spirit) gently re-interrupts Mack, is one moment where I felt The Shack really shone. I laughed aloud and wished the book were as good as this very counterintuitive, yet very biblical moment.

He can walk through walls. But He would never, ever break down a door. Not even to save you. #MuhFreeWill

And yet the story also insists on upholding, as a highest value, man’s free will.¹⁵ Supposedly, God cannot/will not violate man’s will, because “to force my will on you … is exactly what love does not do.”¹⁶ But The Shack’s own earlier claim about man’s “independence” streak better evokes the truth of Scripture itself: man is born “dead.” We are enslaved to our craving for independence from God.¹⁷

And in fact, even The Shack’s God “violates” Mack’s will several times. (S)he stands by while Mack suffers, despite having advance knowledge of events. (S)he will not share her reasons with Mack—itself an act of power, keeping information from another person. (S)he only offers pat answers that only impress some evangelicals.¹⁸

Or consider this imagination exercise:

• Who has a greater amount of freedom in their respective universes: God (as the authors portray him) within reality, or the authors themselves within their story-world?
• Can The Shack’s authors have good reason for “controlling” Mack, as a character, and arranging all events in his world for their good purpose in teaching spiritual lessons?
• Does Mack have absolute “freedom” to choose? Do the authors violate his “free will”?
• Did Mack have free will not to accept the will of “God” and release his “Great Sadness”?

Lie 5: ‘In The Shack, God values love over power.’ Not if you look closer.

Much gilt. Very edges. So Bible.

Furthermore, The Shack claims to oppose all manifestations of human power. “Hierarchy” is contrasted with relationships and only “imposes laws and rules.”¹⁹ Jesus hates the idea of institutions.²⁰ As for Christians who think Bible study and scholarship are beneficial to the Kingdom, they get a snarky little paragraph early on:

In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. … Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?²¹

The Shack’s rhetoric offers a great promise: “We’re going to oppose The Powerful, really stick it to the evangelical Man, because God isn’t restricted by all our authorities and intellectuals!” But it can’t fulfill its own promise due to self-contradictory portrayals of power and institutions. This story ignores its own positive portrayals of power: God as a good judge, God as the only One with answers while Mack questions and complains, Mack and other humans as power-gifted stewards over creation’s gardens and wonders, and even human police officers as agents of earthly justice. The story shows that God and man can exercise power redemptively. Power is not evil. It was originally good, yet can be corrupted.

The Shack does not recognize this fact, perhaps due to its eagerness to reject bad sorts of Christians (whom we do not meet and who are not allowed to speak for themselves). It also fails to consider that if we oppose “power” as intrinsically evil, we will only redirect power to a new ruling party—the new elite who wish to persuade us “they’re not even interested in power.” This is self-evidently absurd, and even dangerous if applied in real-world cultures and relationships. Often it is not truly humble people, but power-craving narcissists, who loudly insist they are not interested in power but only Seek to Do What’s Right.

Anyway, if such new-kind-of-Christians truly don’t care about power, why did the authors join in court battles over book royalties?²² In fact, without rightful power, we could not get books like The Shack. Authors must have power to write a story. Editors, agents, and publishers have power to get it published. Governments have power to enforce contracts and copyrights.

Lie 6: ‘You can’t criticize The Shack because it helps people.’ False.

#AlternativeJesus (Galatians 1:8).

Let us say I grew up in an abusive, amoral, atheistic family, and was confronted by Mormon missionaries. They challenge me to read The Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, et. al. They suggest if I do, I will feel a “burning in the bosom” that helps confirm God is real.

Let us say I did this, felt the burning, found healing from my unbelief, and converted to Mormonism. Then later I found this book really was bad fanfiction about a false god. Instead, I convert to Jesus Christ the only and forever God-Man Who has spent the last 2,000 years redeeming saints for His Kingdom (e.g., He didn’t go on hiatus until Smith).

Would I thank God I read the Book of Mormon for at least getting me started? Maybe.

Would I despise nice Mormon people for wanting to help me meet “God”? Surely not.

But would I praise the false Book of Mormon because God used it to draw me? Not at all.

It’s complicated. So it is with The Shack. Maybe the Lord has used this book to draw you away from some false teaching and toward Himself. In that case, this is wonderful. We will not discount this, or reject your praise for His grace. And thus critics of The Shack should be more careful about judging the motives of its fans. But let us praise the Giver, not the gift (which may be greatly flawed otherwise). And keep moving toward the Source of all truth.

Continue reading at Six More Lies Christians Believe About ‘The Shack’ (coming Thursday, March 16).

A common theme of modern sci-fi has been the exploration and colonization of other worlds. As humanity’s technological prowess has grown, so has its ambition. For a while, the moon was the fixation of mankind’s wanderlust, and tales of its exploration started appearing in early science fiction stories, such as Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon and Edgar Allan Poe’s The Unparalleled Adventures of One Hans Pfaall. The moon was so near yet so far, and so mysterious. Mars also crept into science fiction, with H.G. Wells’ War of the World creating quite a sensation as the first portrayal of an invading alien race.

As our telescopes and satellites improved, we realized that these worlds were not hostile; they were just dead. Our moonwalks revealed a gray rock with hardly any atmosphere, and while Mars has proven to be a lot more intriguing scientifically and speculatively, it’s still just a windswept red desert. However, numerous efforts are underway to get people there (hopefully Matt Damon is not being considered). The frigid red rock for which I am named is being looked at as a serious contender for humanity’s next home.

But that’s not all. Our telescopes and satellites are probing the depths of the universe deeper and deeper every day, and scientists have discovered a whole buffet of “habitable” worlds, planets that could conceivably sustain life. Only a couple of months ago, the news media went bonkers over the discovery of seven possibly habitable worlds only a mere forty light years away. If you read the articles, you would have thought that NASA was already firing up the rockets. Of course, more terrestrial concerns quickly reclaimed the headlines and people went back to regular life.

I love to take hypothetical and speculative romps through the imagination but I consider myself to be a realist. I find the media and the public’s enthusiasm for the rather frequent discovery of “habitable” worlds to be silly groupthink excitement. Yeah, it’s cool that we’ve found other planets that we might have a chance to explore many centuries from now. But the fact remains that we have several right here in our solar system, and they contain countless mysteries we have yet to fathom, and the world at large hardly seems to care. Perhaps it’s because they aren’t “habitable,” a convenient though scientifically dubious label, with possible exception of Mars. It’s like someone saying, “Hey, guess what? They found a new island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean!” Okay, so? How does that make a shred of difference to a family in suburban USA or on the plains of Siberia or a Chinese mega-city?

The idea that we can just pack up and move out like the pioneers heading out West is a romantic notion that remains strictly in the realm of science fiction. My favorite sci-fi whipping boy, Interstellar, took this concept to ludicrous heights. So it’s easier to head out to a wormhole near Saturn and blast off to a distant galaxy to find a world that could support human life (what idiot thought that a planet next to a blank hole would be a viable candidate?) than to fix our own planet? Instead of remodeling our existing house which has some problems, let’s move out to that rocky little island in the middle of the Pacific and see if we have a better shot out there. Seriously?

Regardless of where humanity ends up, we know from the Bible that our final destination will be Earth. Now, it doesn’t seem to be this Earth, but Revelation 21:1 tells us that after Christ’s return, there will be a new heaven and a new Earth, one without any sea. 2 Peter 3:12-13 says that the heavens will be burned away and the elements will melt. It seems to me that no matter where humanity goes, whether we stay Earth-bound or, by some miracle, actually make it to the stars, those who belong to God’s kingdom will spend eternity on a new Earth, not in some heavenly city in the clouds. Mankind was not meant to live among the stars; we were meant to live in the world that God created for us. Unfortunately, it was corrupted by sin, but after judgement and purification, we will be given a new home that will be even better than the first.

As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a Den, and I laid me down in that place to sleep: and, as I slept, I dreamed a dream.

And in that dream, I happened upon a broad land, glittering with buildings, where money grew on trees and the streets were paved with rainbow-colored stones. And the name of that land was Entertainment.

Curious, I turned aside to see what things it contained.

Image from thehungergames.wikia.com

Not far on my way, I passed a building in the shape of an enormous saucer, with the words U.S.S. Enterprise branded across its front. I went in and beheld a giant screen. Upon the screen played scenes featuring Captain James Kirk and the presence of attractive women who were always conveniently underdressed.

Leaving that place, I went on. Soon, a market opened on my left, full of color and noise and excitement. A crowd cheered. I jostled my way to the front and beheld a teenage girl—the Mockingjay they called her. And on either side, two handsome fellows each vying for her attention. Each of them garnered kisses to the delight of the crowd.

Perturbed, I continued my journey. Before long a white-haired man in a flowing cloak accosted me, waving a wand and mumbling some spell. Yet it had no effect, and I left him behind.

The road took a sudden turn between two high buildings. Just beyond, a dazzling display caught my eye. A giant cardboard cutout in the likeness of a man in a business suit and sunglasses. Bolded letters declared him as “Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist.”

As I stared, a tramp of feet shook the ground. I jumped aside as a procession filed past. Cloaked and hooded, they held aloft swords that seemed to gleam life fiery rods of varying colors. A chant came from their lips: “Trust the Force. Trust the Force.”

Further on, my path veered down a dark alley. Groans reached me from the shadows, and for a fleeting moment I beheld, perched on a ledge high above, a silent guardian, a dark knight. One who struck fear into hearts and whose shadow cast destruction. Wondering at this, I hastened on.

I passed booths packed with every fare imaginable: a man who delved too deep into dreams, a wicked witch who reigned in frosty whiteness, a team appointed to save the world. The clamor and gaudy displays crowded upon me. I quickened my step.

Image from disney.wikia.com

And all the vanities and offerings flowed like a stream demanding my attention. Such was the glut of the enticements in the land I traversed.

Lastly, I came upon a magnificent theater with flashy lights and a cheery tune emitting from within. I entered and saw a movie. One man stood out, wearing a rainbow crown upon his head. And his name proclaimed him as the fool.

At last I departed from that strange place, and as I did, a thousand voices crashed upon my hearing. Sighing, shouting, complaining, worrying, and a hundred others.

Startled, I awoke with a cry.

As I sat, I perceived a meaning to my dream. A warning to be alert, to look all around me and discern what the land offered, whether hidden in the shadows or celebrated in the light. And yet also a reassurance that I need not live in utter fear or rejection of those things, for what ultimate sway did they hold upon me?

Furthermore, I realized the advantage of my time spent in that land. For now I was equipped with knowledge of the things therein and could distinguish the immoral from the upright.

Thus ended my journey.

How do you think Christians should respond to “questionable” content or themes?

Much ado is being made about Disney and their up and coming movie, Beauty And The Beast, because the writers/producers incorporated a gay character into the story. This “bold move” is supposedly ground breaking.

The fact is, pop culture, and Disney right along with others, has been pushing agendas that clash with God’s moral standards for as long as there has been pop culture. Perhaps we have unconsciously believed that fairy tales were safe places, that the taint of sin would not spoil a happily-ever-after story told to children. After all, fairy tales came into being in part as cautionary stories to lead children into right moral thinking.

The fact that the movie makers have included a gay character has gotten a lot of people’s attention. But honestly, I’m more frustrated than I am outraged. Why does the gay issue catch our attention more than, say, the ancestor worship of The Lion King? Why were Christians not outraged at the nature worship in Avatar? And why do we love Star Trek in spite of James T. Kirk’s philandering?

Just yesterday I watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that included binaries—people who were neither male nor female. Undoubtedly this concept was an early introduction to the transgender lifestyle, but what I also noticed was that the thinking of these people was limited. They only could choose between 1 or 0. Things were either black or white.

This kind of limited view seems to be infecting our American culture. We are either all in or all out. We support wholeheartedly or we have complete antipathy. There are no in betweens. We apparently can’t discern good parts from immoral parts. Or we believe that any immoral part taints the entire work.

I have news. We humans, because of our sin nature, are all tainted, so it’s pretty impossible to have a work of fiction without tainted parts.

But here’s where I started. Why are we outraged by a gay character but not outraged by Superman, in the 1978 movie, sleeping with Lois Lane? Why didn’t Christians boycott Sleepless In Seattle or Pretty Woman or any number of other movies that have been made since, which depict people involved in sexual relationships outside of marriage?

Have Christians truly decided that sex, any sex, between a man and woman is OK, but sex with someone of the same gender is the unforgivable sin?

Don’t misunderstand. I think our culture is wrong to normalize sin. But I think it’s wrong to normalize serial marriages or living together in place of marriage—not just homosexuality. I think it’s wrong that pornography has been accepted into our culture as normal, that deviant S&M sexual behavior is considered proper material for a best-selling book and movie.

In other words, I don’t think Disney is groundbreaking by pushing our society away from a Biblical standard of morality. I think it’s simply joined the crowd. And why wouldn’t it?

From a human point, Disney wants to make as much money as possible. They have determined that the left-leaning liberal way which is “inclusive” and “tolerant” is the way of the future. They don’t want to be left behind. (Pun intended).

But we Christians also have Scripture that clearly tells us society will become increasingly twisted. Isaiah gives this warning:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
And valiant men in mixing strong drink,
Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! (Isaiah 5:20-23)

My contention is that our culture has been calling evil, good, and darkness, light for some time, and we’ve not exposed the lies.

We’ve also not infused pop culture with the truth, at least not in a meaningful way. I think J. R. R. Tolkien did in The Lord Of The Rings, and C. S. Lewis did in Narnia, but I’m hard pressed to think of other books or movies written for the culture at large that have stood so clearly for Biblical morality and truth.

I realize that Christian authors have learned a lot and grown a great deal in skill. I realize that Christian film making is in its infancy and is experiencing growing pains.

But I have a greater concern—that we who are creating stories are missing the way we can influence others the most.

I’m not one who believes that Christian fiction is a tract or too preachy because there are Christian characters. I think stories that encourage Christians to live godly lives are necessary. But isn’t that what The Lord Of The Rings did? Isn’t that what Narnia did? And yet both were equally accessible to people who aren’t Christians.

Those stories inspire and encourage, but at the same time they suggest that what we have here and now is not all there is. There is a High King who is coming. There is a Land further up and further in. We hunger for what we have only tasted in story.

All this to say, we need to strengthen our discernment muscle. We take in garbage every day—in the music we listen to, the videos we watch, the TV programs we tune in. That’s to be expected because the world is a reflection of the sin nature of us all. Believers are to be light pointing to Christ. We ought not expect to find light coming from the darkness.

And yet, on occasion, beauty comes from the ashes. The image of God which He stamped upon Humankind at creation, shines through, and we are stunned by beauty, whether music or story or painting or photography or some other form of creating.

Unlike the binaries, however, we must stay alert, think deeply, and see the whole—the beauty, and the Fall. By recognizing that some parts of culture reflect Human sinfulness and some reflect the stamp of God’s image, we can be on guard. We can take an important step to expose that which violates God’s moral law:

Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them (Ephesians 5:11).

We expose deeds of darkness, I think, by pouring light on them. When we hold up Christ, when we show Him as the One who rescued us from the kingdom of darkness, the distinction between the two is clear. Mordor or Gondor? Aragorn or Sauron? The White Witch or Aslan?

No one needs to explain the dangers of Mordor or the evil of the White Witch. The stories showed us. The stories exposed the evil and put a longing in our hearts for the light and glory, for the hope we have in heaven, for the restored relationship with God available in Jesus Christ.

So what’s the big deal with Disney? They do what people do. We believers need to praise the parts that reflect God’s image and we need to expose the parts that reflect our fallen condition. But that should be standard operating procedure—not just something we do because there’s a gay character in the story.

On Feb. 23, Family Christian Stores is closing after declaring bankruptcy for the second time. Evidently, this time it’s for good. Unlike the first go round, which was largely a reorganization, this is a liquidation, with the proceeds for the sale of the property and merchandise to be sent back to the creditors.

What’s tragic here is that another brick and mortar outlet for Christian-based merchandise has left the scene. Yet, I don’t think anyone can look at the circumstances of the demise of FCS and say they are surprised. I’m not.

A little over 18 months ago, I read a blog post from Steve Laube that gave some of the salient details on the brief dive and quick departure from the bankruptcy pool. I’m going to list them here for reference.

• Stores will stay open
• Trade creditors will get 5% of what they are owed plus 100% for all of the sales made within 20 days of the bankruptcy filing.
• Owners of consignment inventory will get paid for a percentage of their inventory, somewhere between 10-35%, depending on circumstances.
• The main secured creditor will get paid 100%.
• Another secured creditor will take a large write-off.

Somewhere in the minutiae of the details was the fact that my royalty check from Bethany House (for my fantasy novels such as A Cast of Stones, The Hero’s Lot, and A Draw of Kings) would be smaller because of the bankruptcy. I’m not sure how much, but my best estimate in somewhere in the four-figure range. No, my world didn’t end, but I did work hard for that money, and like a lot of people, I felt cheated.

Why?

Surely, business is risk. I understand that. I think most people do. Surely, I didn’t expect to be immune to the pitfalls and misfortunes that come with the publishing industry. Oh my, no. You can’t get into a reasonable discussion with anyone in the publishing industry without getting at least a sense that it’s going through some serious growth pains.

Why did I feel taken advantage of?

In the end, I think it had to do with two factors. First, back in 2015, someone had decided that their economic survival depended on my financial sacrifice. Well, no one bothered to ask me for my sacrifice. They just took it. I read lots of comments on the inter-sphere talking about how this would help FCS emerge stronger and leaner and better able to serve their market.

I didn’t believe it for a moment. After delving through the details, I got the impression the reorganization was basically a ham-fisted grab for merchandise to try to artificially inflate the balance sheet. I remember commenting at the time that I’d thought FCS had poisoned the well with the way they’d conducted themselves.

Imagine you’re one of the companies who had to settle for five cents on the dollar for what you’re owed. Would you supply that company with any more of your precious product without full payment up front? I wouldn’t. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m a little sharper than a bowling ball.

And this brings me to the second point of what bothered me so much about the FCS reorganization: It was the fact that all the while, the parties involved kept spouting the usual Christian platitudes, even while they were forcing other companies to pay the price for their mistakes.

What does it mean to be a Christian business?

No, that’s not a trick question. I suppose it’s a sad commentary that we’re at the point where we have to define terms, but I think it will help. I say this because I think a lot of the time, we use that term in different ways. Since I’m a science nerd, I thought a Punnett square would be helpful. If you don’t know what that is, here is the definition, courtesy of www.dictionary.com.

Punnett square – noun: in genetics, a type of grid used to show the gametes of each parent and their possible offspring; a type of grid that can indicate all the possible outcomes of a genetic cross;  also called checkerboard.

	Merchandise (Sells Christian merchandise) M	merchandise (Does not sell Christian merchandise) m
B Behavior (Acts Christian)	BM	Bm
b behavior (Doesn’t act Christian)	bM	bm

So, ask you can see, there are four distinct possibilities here. I’m probably like a lot of people. When the “Christian” appears in the title or description of the business, I immediately go to the upper left of the matrix and assume that the Merchandise and the Behavior or both will be Christian. If this doesn’t happen, I’m disappointed, often bitterly so.

Not even Jesus Always could save Family Christian Stores, such as this location north of Austin, Texas during the 2016 Christmas retail season. (photo: E. Stephen Burnett)

I’m pretty sure this has to do with expectations. For example, most of the time I encounter a true example of the upper right corner of the matrix, the Bm square, I’m impressed. I recommend that business to other people, usually because it’s such a pleasant surprise. Chick-fil-A comes to mind as an example. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read stories of how store owners have helped people in trouble by bringing them free food from the store. The merchandise isn’t Christian. Far from it. For crying out loud, it’s a chicken.

That brings us to the final two squares. Like most people, I’ll avoid the lower right corner like the plague unless there’s just no other option. But as a point of clarification, usually what I mean by the “bm” label is a business that takes my money while they’re treating me like dirt. Sorry, I won’t be back. Good luck and hope you get a clue.

The real problem is the lower left corner of the matrix, the dreaded “bM.” I’d like to say they don’t exist, but the truth is, they can’t help but exist. Church history is rife with people who saw the power and popularity of the gospel as the way to make a buck. To assume that these people and business don’t exist is worse than naïve, it’s intentional stupidity.

Did FCS fall into this category? I think so. To be clear here, I’m not judging their hearts or motive, but their actions. With the help of the bankruptcy judge, they confiscated what wasn’t theirs and kept it. They refused to pay their debt.

This begs “The Big Question.” How should a business then act?

I would hope it would be a “BM” all the time every time, but that expectation is unreasonable. In the end, a business is like a church. It might be filled with Christian, well-meaning people, but sooner or later they’re going to make mistakes. Forgiveness is really the only path left to us. I could wish that FCS had been “BM” the whole way. I think it would have been a better witness than to forestall the inevitable by eighteen months.

But they didn’t. Now, just as it was then, it’s up to the rest of us. Don’t gloss over the wrong, but offer compassion and forgiveness. That’s not the way most people would act and that’s precisely why we need to do it. As always, the most important gift we have to offer the world is our witness. People are watching. They’re always watching.