Steve: It thrilled me to no end to see you and Paul linked together in the USA Today article. I sent the article as an email to several people with the subject ... Two of my favorite people linked together. I totally support your endorsement. As a recovering fundamentalist I understand the uproar from some folks, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss just who God really is... The book has expaned my thinking in appreciating our Trinitarian God and the reality of our being invited into that pericoretic relationship. As a friend often says "Go God!" He's rocking the boat and the establishment is feeling the shake...
Steve, Since I disagree with your endorsement of The Shack, I doubt I'll see these comments posted, (in their entirety) regardless of how graciously they are written. Having just viewed the June 14th blog where you take my comments both out of context and selectively read ones that make me appear to be a nut job, I question where the "grace" is in presenting my thoughts to you in that manner. My promptings by the Holy Spirit are dismissed (since they adjure me to put down the book) yet those who agree with you are praised for their discernment...You ignore my direct reference to aknowleging the role of the Spirit (as per Jesus) is to bring things to remembrance or prod us to get a check in the spirit when things are a bit amiss. I'm neither new to the Lord or to your concepts of a Grace Walk and loved both hearing you speak at Keswick and reading your books....I mentioned disagreeing with a comment in your article about the solace the book give to some folks...well..Finding "solace and inspiration" is not finding Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Many people find the same qualities in chanting "om" and spending the day cleaning up the national parks for earth day! Steve...my point in blogging here is to upbraid you for mischaracterizing my letter (regardless of its "3 page, single spaced length. Your facial expressions during the reading of the portions you chose to pluck out characterize what you really thought and reveal a heart that was less than grace filled. Regardless of the message you spoke about my graciousness in writing to you...I did so to dialogue with you...not to be spoken about in a chat online that hardly characterized my thoughts. I will continue to be grace filled but will speak the truth in love to those both near me in the pews and a bit farther away in the front of an auditorium or on a blog. You might reread my letter, and share with your audience the truths behind it...we can certainly disagree...but to liken Young comparing God to a black woman to Jesus being portrayed as a lion in the Chronicles of Narnia is a stretch...hyperbole shouldn't be needed to send home your point...the feminism aspect of the book was not and is not my issue...as stated clearly in the part of the letter you opted to ignore reading....Grace and peace...Nancy...still would love to dialogue...perhaps at Keswick next year...
Please accept this public apology for offending you by my response to your email. I assure you that it was never my intent to be offensive or to selectively lift out things you said in an attempt to make you look bad.
Apparently, I have deleted the first email you sent, which I responded to on the video. If you will send it again, I will post your full email here so that people can see exactly what you said.
The challenge with answering long emails in the video format is that I don't have time to cover everything addressed in the mail I receive. I do pick and choose what I want to respond to based on what I believe is most relevant to the discussion.
I must have missed the mark with your email. Again, I apologize.
I will say that I don't have an interest in debating Paul Young's book. Originally, I made what I thought was a simple recommendation of a book I liked, the way I've done many times. I had no idea that a simple recommendation would take on a life of its own -including an interview by USA TODAY.
I don't even spend my time defending my own books, so I sure don't have the time to defend what somebody else wrote. I hope you understand.
Again, I am sorry that I offended you. I have no problem standing boldly for truth when I am confronted by Pharisees, but I sensed nothing of the sort in what you wrote. My offense was unintended.
Now..to the rest of you who are asking me about The Shack...I'm DONE with talking about it :) I thought the book was great. And as one "great theologian" said, "That's all I got to say about that."
Thanks Steve, for you gracious reply. I appreciate your candidness. I do not feel the need to have you post the entire letter here, but if you want me to resend it to you, let me have the address to get it to you without going through the blog (I forgot how I got it to you in the first place) I understand your time constraints and respect what you said about your initial comments being a quick opinion about what you thought about the book. Sometimes when books tend to polarize folks who tend to agree otherwise, things do take on a life of their own. Since my salvation doesn't rest on my likes or dislikes of this piece of fiction, I'm fine with letting it go. I posted my comments to you as a quick (though lengthy) discourse, and look how they took on a life of their own. Having read more recent blogs on your site, I wonder if we disagree on this book partly because you seem to like the Message paraphrase version of the Bible (like Rick Warren) while I prefer the NASB. I read the book despite Petterson's endorsement, not because of it, and from its content, now see why his endorsement should have been a warning to me.
At any rate, thanks for your clarification and heartfelt apology. I was less offended by your public comments than I was surprised. Stuff like this tends to nudge me back into the word and away from what may pop up on my local bookstore's shelf in the area labeled "Christian."
(While I back my comments and my initial letter to you, I feel the posting of it may do what we both hope to avoid...drag out this topic, that neither of us meant to do. My desire was simply to reason together...not divide over something to trite and clearly fictional I can't see either one of us tried to pretend there was any serious theology in it.)
God bless you. Glad your writing is coming along and I'll see you next summer. Nancy
As I thought about it, I think I remember now that your first message to me wasn't an email, but a letter. That's why I couldn't find it.
I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to email the original note to me. If you do, I'll post it here. If you're okay with what we've posted at this point, that's fine too. I'll let you make the call.
Thanks for your insights Steve.
ReplyDeletethe Perichoresis idea has been beautifully talked about in Baxter Kruger's book "The Great Dance" found here - http://www.perichoresis.org/store.php
as well as other books that talk of the beauty of the trinitarian life and how that relates to us.
I highly recommend them along with all of Steve's books!
Steve:
ReplyDeleteIt thrilled me to no end to see you and Paul linked together in the USA Today article. I sent the article as an email to several people with the subject ... Two of my favorite people linked together. I totally support your endorsement. As a recovering fundamentalist I understand the uproar from some folks, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss just who God really is...
The book has expaned my thinking in appreciating our Trinitarian God and the reality of our being invited into that pericoretic relationship.
As a friend often says "Go God!" He's rocking the boat and the establishment is feeling the shake...
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSince I disagree with your endorsement of The Shack, I doubt I'll see these comments posted, (in their entirety) regardless of how graciously they are written. Having just viewed the June 14th blog where you take my comments both out of context and selectively read ones that make me appear to be a nut job, I question where the "grace" is in presenting my thoughts to you in that manner. My promptings by the Holy Spirit are dismissed (since they adjure me to put down the book) yet those who agree with you are praised for their discernment...You ignore my direct reference to aknowleging the role of the Spirit (as per Jesus) is to bring things to remembrance or prod us to get a check in the spirit when things are a bit amiss. I'm neither new to the Lord or to your concepts of a Grace Walk and loved both hearing you speak at Keswick and reading your books....I mentioned disagreeing with a comment in your article about the solace the book give to some folks...well..Finding "solace and inspiration" is not finding Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Many people find the same qualities in chanting "om" and spending the day cleaning up the national parks for earth day! Steve...my point in blogging here is to upbraid you for mischaracterizing my letter (regardless of its "3 page, single spaced length. Your facial expressions during the reading of the portions you chose to pluck out characterize what you really thought and reveal a heart that was less than grace filled. Regardless of the message you spoke about my graciousness in writing to you...I did so to dialogue with you...not to be spoken about in a chat online that hardly characterized my thoughts. I will continue to be grace filled but will speak the truth in love to those both near me in the pews and a bit farther away in the front of an auditorium or on a blog. You might reread my letter, and share with your audience the truths behind it...we can certainly disagree...but to liken Young comparing God to a black woman to Jesus being portrayed as a lion in the Chronicles of Narnia is a stretch...hyperbole shouldn't be needed to send home your point...the feminism aspect of the book was not and is not my issue...as stated clearly in the part of the letter you opted to ignore reading....Grace and peace...Nancy...still would love to dialogue...perhaps at Keswick next year...
Nancy,
ReplyDeletePlease accept this public apology for offending you by my response to your email. I assure you that it was never my intent to be offensive or to selectively lift out things you said in an attempt to make you look bad.
Apparently, I have deleted the first email you sent, which I responded to on the video. If you will send it again, I will post your full email here so that people can see exactly what you said.
The challenge with answering long emails in the video format is that I don't have time to cover everything addressed in the mail I receive. I do pick and choose what I want to respond to based on what I believe is most relevant to the discussion.
I must have missed the mark with your email. Again, I apologize.
I will say that I don't have an interest in debating Paul Young's book. Originally, I made what I thought was a simple recommendation of a book I liked, the way I've done many times. I had no idea that a simple recommendation would take on a life of its own -including an interview by USA TODAY.
I don't even spend my time defending my own books, so I sure don't have the time to defend what somebody else wrote. I hope you understand.
Again, I am sorry that I offended you. I have no problem standing boldly for truth when I am confronted by Pharisees, but I sensed nothing of the sort in what you wrote. My offense was unintended.
Now..to the rest of you who are asking me about The Shack...I'm DONE with talking about it :) I thought the book was great. And as one "great theologian" said, "That's all I got to say about that."
Thanks Steve, for you gracious reply. I appreciate your candidness. I do not feel the need to have you post the entire letter here, but if you want me to resend it to you, let me have the address to get it to you without going through the blog (I forgot how I got it to you in the first place) I understand your time constraints and respect what you said about your initial comments being a quick opinion about what you thought about the book. Sometimes when books tend to polarize folks who tend to agree otherwise, things do take on a life of their own. Since my salvation doesn't rest on my likes or dislikes of this piece of fiction, I'm fine with letting it go. I posted my comments to you as a quick (though lengthy) discourse, and look how they took on a life of their own. Having read more recent blogs on your site, I wonder if we disagree on this book partly because you seem to like the Message paraphrase version of the Bible (like Rick Warren) while I prefer the NASB. I read the book despite Petterson's endorsement, not because of it, and from its content, now see why his endorsement should have been a warning to me.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, thanks for your clarification and heartfelt apology. I was less offended by your public comments than I was surprised. Stuff like this tends to nudge me back into the word and away from what may pop up on my local bookstore's shelf in the area labeled "Christian."
(While I back my comments and my initial letter to you, I feel the posting of it may do what we both hope to avoid...drag out this topic, that neither of us meant to do. My desire was simply to reason together...not divide over something to trite and clearly fictional I can't see either one of us tried to pretend there was any serious theology in it.)
God bless you. Glad your writing is coming along and I'll see you next summer. Nancy
Nancy,
ReplyDeleteAs I thought about it, I think I remember now that your first message to me wasn't an email, but a letter. That's why I couldn't find it.
I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to email the original note to me. If you do, I'll post it here. If you're okay with what we've posted at this point, that's fine too. I'll let you make the call.