Witch Hunting or Contending for the Faith?: Interacting with the Pastor of Five Stones Church

The Pastor at Five Stones has posted a blog entitled, "Is THE SHACK Heresy? Are the Chronicles of Narnia."  Most of it is a quote from another source who was involved with the writing and printing of the book.  At the end, Pastor Sherwood gives his two cents.  It is interesting because it is most certainly a response to my letter to the editor in the TG, and because he uses the words "condemning witchhunts and anti-grace lynch mobs" in reference to the anti-Shack crowd.  I can't help but be under the impression that this refers to me. 

Whether or not that is true is up for debate.  Nevertheless, I would like to concentrate on a couple of quotes from Pastor Sherwood that are much more worthy of examination.  First, he says in reference to the literary formulation of The Shack, "Art cannot be judged with the same lens we judge an excel spreadsheet of facts...or doctrine."

I agree to some extent that art differs from excel spreadsheets and doctrinal statements.  One does not typically speak of beauty when it comes to the latter two.  Nevertheless, we (i.e. Christians) do judge art and beauty by objective standards like we do with spreadsheets and doctrines.

Let me illustrate:  In the early 4th century the teaching of a man named Arius was condemned and anathematized.  He was teaching that Christ was not truly of the same divine substance with the Father.  Rather Jesus was considered the first created being of the Father, a sort of lower demi god.  His motto was, "There was a time when he [Jesus] was not." 

Arius was highly influential and quite a dynamic personality.  People were attracted to him and his heresy even came to be the dominant opinion of the church at one time.  One thing that Arius did to popularize his view was to create hymns that promoted his theology.

If we were to take Pastor Sherwood's advice, we would say that his hymns were art and should not be judged the same way that we judge doctrine or an excel spreadsheet.  Therefore Arius was not wrong and should have been accepted.  Unfortunately for Arius (and Rev. Sherwood), we can judge art with many of the same objective factors.  Truth is truth, no matter what medium is used to communicate it.

Art is to be judged on the basis of 1) its form and 2) its content.  Form has to do with the methods employed in conveying the content.  A painting's form will include, among other things, the type of brushstrokes used (are they bold or barely noticeable), color choice (bright or dark), balance (symmetrical or asymmetical), and lines (where is the attention directed?).  The content will be shaped by the form, but it will have some distinction from the form.  The content may be a depiction of the atonement Christ accomplished on the cross or an insult of it as dung is spread all over it.  The beauty of such a thing is not left "in the eye of the beholder."  Rather the beauty can be judged on the basis of the truth of Scripture: dung + crucifix = blasphemy.

When it came to Arius' hymns, the error could be determined to be wrong because, while its form (i.e. melody, rhythm, harmony) was beautiful, the content (Christ was not of the same substance with the Father) was radically unorthodox.

When it comes to The Shack, we might critique it similarly...which I attempted to do in my TG editorial.  The form (writing style, grammar, development of plot) is excellent, but the content (universalism, denial of hell, saying that all 3 persons of the Trinity became incarnate in Christ) is woefully mistaken.

A SHEPHERD'S DUTY TO PROTECT THE SHEEP
Pastor Sherwood goes on to say in reference to The Shack, "all writings could and should be open to some correction or critique."  I commend him for such a statement.  It is true that even the best of men's works should be read with a grain of salt.  Yet, what I find interesting is that Pastor Sherwood offers no correction or criticism of the book in his post.  Even the article that he cut and pasted was a full blown defense of the book that had absolutely nothing critical to say.  Moreover, the article quoted defends some of the errors it should be recanting (e.g. no hierarchy in the Trinity, salvation's exclusivity, and universalism)!  The author doesn't even say, "Yes, we know that this isn't in accord with the Bible's teaching.  We were communicating [this or that point] that is biblical."

A shepherd of the sheep is to be concerned for the right instruction and spiritual guidance of his sheep (Acts 20:28f).  Being that this is so, I find Pastor Sherwood's outright commendation of the book curious, to say the least.

THE COMMAND TO LOVE
Another item that Pastor Sherwood brings up is the notion of love.  He says that some blogs are "completely off target with Jesus COMMANDS to love, and even to offer corrective teaching IN LOVE."  I certainly agree that some out there who are highly crass and lacking in love.  I do not believe though, that any of my comments (or people I linked to) thus far have been lacking in charity.  Perhaps Sherwood's comments might not have been directed at me specifically, but I can't help but think that it was.

We should all recognize that contending for the faith means standing and pointing fingers (which I readily admit that I have done).  Of course, Christ did the same with the religious leaders of his time.  The Apostle Paul was not afraid to name names and sound the alarm against specific persons/doctrines either (see 2 Tim. 2:17-18!).

To be sure, contending for the faith and pointing out where others need to repent is the most loving thing one can do.  To allow someone to go on in their sin and lead people astray would be the epitome of a loveless heart.