I have no idea when, but new blog posts are in the future!

Related posts:

1. Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited There are inherent dangers in criticizing certain causes such as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The largest problem with The Shack lies in what seems to be its main message. God tries very hard to rid Mack of all notions of religion, hierarchy, ritual, tradition, authority and law. In the great tradition of fashioning God in our own image, Young adopts a very American, democratic vision of God. The problem is that this vision of God is not Biblical, and contradicts the constant teaching and practices of the Church. Young’s error, an error shared by most Evangelicals, is a misunderstanding of the proper role of law and authority that stems from an Americanized exegesis of Scripture with no connection to Tradition to tie our understanding of Scripture to the teachings of the Apostles.

According to God’s teachings in The Shack, Original Sin was not a sin of prideful disobedience, but of independence.  Instead of putting their complete and total trust in God, Adam & Eve struck out on their own.  Fallen human nature is henceforth expressed by our attempts to independently control our own lives.  There is certainly some truth to the independence factor of Original Sin.  Adam & Eve should have put their trust in God, as symbolized by the Tree of Life.  We do express too much independence as fallen human beings and we fail to trust God enough.  However, to make the fall all about independence misses the importance of price and concupiscence in our sinful nature.  More importantly, The Shack makes our dependence on God so absolute that humanity would sacrifice its free will by following God.  Young misses the fact that God wants us to use our will within our relationship with Him, to choose a relationship with Him but also to make choices within that relationship to cooperate with Grace and to live fully human lives.

The Shack definitely takes this myopic view of Original Sin to its logical conclusion. Young sees human institutions as instruments of independence that oppose a true trusting relationship with God.  His God rails against economics, politics, religion, rules, authority and expectations.  The Catholic Church offers a more Biblical and balanced view of human institutions that says that submission to God and cooperation with Grace lead us to use human institutions to spread His love and goodness.  Where human institutions fail to bring God’s love and goodness to other human beings, they need to be reformed.  However, where they succeed, they constitute a beautiful cooperation between human free-will and the Will of God.

Exactly where in the Bible does God condemn human government, economics and religion? The belief that God does not work through these institutions can only come from a very selective reading of the Bible. All authority comes from God, even the authority of human institutions. The purpose of all authority is to lead us to authentic good. While God does show that human institutions can lead us away from trusting in Him (the best example is when God warns the Hebrew people against having a king because He wanted them to follow Him as their King), other times God sets up human institutions to bring about His will, such as when He instructed Moses to organize the Judges to help govern the Hebrew nation. Jesus set up the Church led by the Apostles in hierarchical format. We even see the equivalent of bishops, priests and deacons mentioned in the New Testament. Furthermore, history tells us that this is the form the Church took from the time of the Apostles. Other expressions of this misunderstanding of law, authority and religion include

• God ridiculing Mack for bowing his head and closing his eyes to pray (page 120). Sure, Mack is in their presence and perhaps didn’t need to close out the distractions of the world, but there is no attempt to explore why this is may be a valid posture of prayer.
• Jesus making the claim that Scripture does not contain demands and rules (page 197), completely ignoring Jesus’ teaching in the Bible about the sheep and the goats (among other teachings) and Paul’s teachings that certain immoral acts will keep people from the Kingdom of God. Again, Young creates a false distinction between the law and love. He does not realize that the purpose of the moral law is to teach us to love!
• A complete misrepresentation of the 10 Commandments as a set of impossible ideals intended to show us that it is impossible to be righteous: Sarayu (the Holy Spirit) says, "Actually, we wanted you to give up tyring to be righteous on your own. It was a mirror to reveal just how filthy your face gets when you live independently" (page 202). This is a common Evangelical claim, but one that is very unbiblical. Why would the Old Testament praise such a law before they were given a savior? Why would Jesus claim that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and then teach a law that was even more exacting?
• A complete misunderstanding of freedom. Again, Sarayu claim, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control." He also says that the law is a weapon that we use to judge others. In other words, trying to keep the moral law is opposed to God’s will for us. God even tells Mack that under Jesus all things are lawful – he doesn’t have to follow the rules! God says, "Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse" (page 203). This is so opposed to biblical truth that tells us that God gave us the Law in order to set us free, to teach us to love, and to lead us to conversion of heart.  God’s love does not abolish human freedom by turning independence into dependence.  It fulfills human freedom by turning human independence into interdependence, a life of cooperation with Grace and participation in the Divine Life.

The Shack’s disdain for religion was born only in the 20th century in the Evangelical community, based on selective reading of Jesus’ teachings against legalism. The following passage provides a clear portrayal of this disdain.

Mack looked back at the lake before responding. "I would have preferred that you did take control at times. It would have saved me and people I care about a lot of pain."

"To force my will on you," Jesus replied, "is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy."

"That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

Mack was surprised. "How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"

"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me."

"And that’s how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I means between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?"

Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expressio of your new nature within relationships" (145-146).

The assumption that Young makes here is that obedience and authority are diametrically opposed to love and respect. Young fails to see that obedience and authority have an unfallen aspect to them, which we see in God’s dealings with His people. They are certainly subservient to love and respect, and indeed obedience and authority lead us to love and respect. But they are not opposed.

The purpose of law and authority is to lead us to what is authentically good for us. The goal of love is to lead others to the greatest possible good. So, ideally law and authority are acts of love (as they always are with God and with the Church). In a fallen world, law and authority help us to overcome ignorance and selfishness and to reach for what is truly good for us when we would really prefer an inferior good (or to reach what is good for others when we would prefer to selfishly focus on our own good). In an unfallen world, law and authority would still have this purpose, but they would not have to overcome sin and ignorance. Instead they would serve to organize human society to help us to work together to attain authentic good for each other.

In one of the many discussions that Mack has with God on the evil of religion, Jesus explains to Mack that His Church is all about relationships, not about human institutions or laws or hierarchy. Mack proclaims,

"I really do want to understand. I mean, I find the way you are so different from all the well-intentioned religious stuff I’m familiar with."

As well-intentioned as it might be, you know that religious machinery can chew people up!" Jesus said with a bite of his own. "An awful lot of what is done in my name has nothing to do with me and is often, even if unintentional, very contrary to my purposes."

"You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?" Mack said, not sure if he was asking a question or making an observation.

"I don’t create institutions — never have, never will" (178-179).

Again, Young makes the false assumption that human institutions and authorities are contrary to love and true faith. After a brief interlude that poses a false contrast between marriage as an institution and marriage as a relationship, Jesus continues,

"Like I said, I don’t create institutions; that’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big into religion," Jesus said a little sarcastically, "and not very fond of politics or economics either." Jesus’ visage darkened noticeably. "And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?"

Mack hesitated. He wasn’t sure what to say. This all felt a little over his head. Noticing that Mack’s eyes were glazing over, Jesus downshifted. "Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to gain some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false! Systems cannot provide you security, only I can" (179).

These errors about law, authority, freedom, religion, ritual, etc. are core to the message of the book. God’s main concern in this book does not seem to be to set Mackenzie free from his pain (though he does do this) or to set him free from sin, but to set him free from religion.

Overall Recommendation

Despite the attention that The Shack has received as a Christian bestseller, I found the book seriously lacking. It contains within it a nice story about healing and forgiveness, but that story is told through mediocre writing and surrounded by proselytizing and preaching. Unfortunately, The Shack also preaches the wrong gospel. Overall, I would not recommend The Shack. If you do read it, be sure to read it critically, with your Bible and Catechism close at hand.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 3: Portrayal of God – What The Shack Got Right) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 1: Literary Review) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

 5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, 6 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name a that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, a to the glory of God the Father (NAB).

One enthusiastic radio preacher saw the words "found human in appearance" and proudly proclaimed that Jesus was not human, but only appeared to be human because that is what the Holy Bible says. This preacher was attempting to revive an ancient heresy called Docetism, which held that Christ’s human nature was only the appearance of humanity, but that Jesus was fully God and not truly human at all. The Shack almost goes toward the opposite error by almost denying Christ’s divinity.

After using the analogy of a bird with its wings clipped, which continues to be a bird but is limited in its faculties of flight, Papa explains,

“Although by nature he is fully God, Jesus is fully human and lives as such. While never losing the innate ability to fly, he chooses moment-by-moment to remain grounded. tha tis why his name is Immanuel, god with us, or God with you, to be more precise

“But what about all the miracles? The healings? Raising people from the dead? Doesn’t that prove that jesus was God – you know, more than human?”

“No, it proves that Jesus is truly human.”

“What?”

“Mackenzie, I can fly, but humans can’t. Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he as never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationsihp with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost — the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regarding or appearance or consequence.”

“So, when he healed the blined?”

He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (99-100).

The radio preacher thought he had the right to interpret the Bible by himself, and he ended up repeating an ancient heresy. William Young likewise claims the right to interpret the Bible individually, and he too enters into heresy. The passage above opposes the constant understanding of who Christ was, verified by the Fourch Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis (see Catechism of the Catholic Church article 467).

The same truth has been taught in the Church’s liturgy throughout history:

“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed,” sings the Roman Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: “O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!” (CCC 468).

This Christological error is critical, but it should not be surprising that belief in Sola Scriptura and the rejection of a teaching authority that offers an authentic interpretation of Scripture would lead to such an error. That brings me to the last and greatest problem with The Shack.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 4: Theological Problem with God as Father) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 6 – Rejection of Religion & Final Recommendations) Rejection of Religion The largest problem with The Shack lies...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The most obvious target for theological nit-pickers is the fact that two of the three Persons of the Trinity are portrayed as women. Young attempts to soften the impact of seeing "Papa" as a woman by bringing in a deep conflict with this father that makes it difficult for Mack to relate to God as a father. However, this attempt falls short in two ways. First, the conflict with Mack’s father has no backstory to make it believable. It is brought into the picture for the specific purpose of justifying the gender portrayal of God. Second, all attempts to soften the message are all but abolished by the obvious agenda of destroying traditional understandings of God.

She picked up the wooden spoon again, dripping with some sort of batter. “Mackenzie, I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”

She leaned forward as if to share a secret. “To reveal myself to you as a very large, white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf, would simply reinforce your religous stereotypes, and this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes” (93).

There is no acknowledgement or exploration of what those “religious stereotypes” may mean. The old man with the long, flowing beard comes form the art tradition, which attempts to portray theological truths through imagery. The traditional image of God is not an empty religous stereotype. It actually portrays truth found in the Bible and in Tradition. It portrays God’s wisdom, power, and His relationship with His people.

God does acknowledge that the image of Him as Father is Biblical. However, his reasoning behind this image reveals the limited Evangelical exegesis that runs so rampant.

“But then," he paused, still focused on staying rational, "why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself."

“Well” responded Papa, turnign away from him and bustling around the kitchen, “there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are needed — but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence” (94).

So, the only explanation that God is willing to share with Mack is a sociological one? It’s a questionable sociological explanation as well. First of all, its logic contradicts Papa’s reason for appearing to Mack as a woman in the first place. The absence of fathers makes it more difficult for people to approach a God who portrays Himself as a Father. If Mack is more comfortable with a Divine Mother, wouldn’t everyone else in a fatherless society? Secondly, Young joins many Evangelicals in being clueless about the loss of motherhood due to contraception. Contraception has changed the primary role of women from mother to lover.
Children are the exception, not the rule, and they are treated as exotic, expensive, high maintenance pets. True motherhood is in as much danger as true fatherhood.

Catholic exegesis has uncovered for us a deeper and more complete significance of God’s Fatherhood. By calling Himself Father, God reveals how He relates to us. As the Father, God gives life and goodness for the purpose of creating a family (covenant). The Earth and the Church are understood as mother, because they receive the gifts of goodness and life, participate in the creation of new natural and supernatural life, and nurture that life within them. Human fatherhood and motherhood are sacramental participation in this divine relationship (the Covenant). One would think that if God was going to share only one reason for revealing Himself as Father, it would be the explanation that affirms Mack’s own fatherhood and clearly reveals the love that God has for us.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 1: Literary Review) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 3: Portrayal of God – What The Shack Got Right) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Despite some of the heavy criticisms from the Evangelical community, I did not find the God presented in The Shack to be a major divergence from the God presented by most evangelicals. Of course, this means that Catholics are going to have some theological problems with this book.

The Trinity

First of all, the Trinity is presented very well in this book. William Young does not fall into modalism (seeing the three Persons of the Trinity as three different ways that God relates to us). He presents the Trinity as three distinct Persons who share so intimately in each other’s lives that they interpenetrate each other so that Mack cannot have a conversation with one of them without the other two knowing what was discussed. Here is a key passage:

“But what difference does it make that there are three of you, and you are all one God. Did I say that right?”

“Right enough.” She grinned. “Mackenzie, it makes all the difference in the world!” She seemed to be enjoying this. “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father and owrker. I am on God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely one.”

The “huh?” Mack had been suppressing finally surfaced in all its glory.

“Never mind that,” she continued. “What’s important is this: If I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, wihtout something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am.”

“And we would be without . . .?” Mack didn’t even know how to finish the question.

"Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself. Love is not the limitation; love is the flying. I am love" (101).

Young stops short of Theology of the Body, but this is a pretty good understanding of the Image of God.

Love and Forgiveness

Building on this good foundation, The Shack also does a fairly good job discussing love and forgiveness. Young differentiates between feelings and choices in these two areas. Mack is able to forgive the murderer of his daughteer even while he still feels anger toward him. Forgiveness is seen as giving up the judgment of someone else, not necessarily as reconciling a relationship or feeling at peace about someone. In the same way, God’s love for Mackenzie doesn’t softstep the reality of suffering and struggle, but even shows the necessity of hardship in forging true love.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 1: Literary Review) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 4: Theological Problem with God as Father) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Criticisms of The Shack

Apparently there has been quite a bit of fire even from Evangelicals about the way that William Young portrays God in this book. My guess is that most of the fire comes from the fact that Young portrays "Papa" (God the Father) and the Holy Spirit as women.

Windblown Press has responded to some of the criticisms his book has received. He seems pretty defensive, but his explanations are worth reading.

• The book seems to promote Universalism (all roads lead to Heaven).
  Jesus is an integral part of the Trinity, but there are some passages that indicate that He may not be necessary for salvation. The brush with the Universalist error may be more due to the author’s intense rejection of "religion." It is worth an examination.

• The book devalues scripture.
  This criticism comes from a Sola Scriptura culture that is used to scripture references being explicit. Young uses subtle Biblical allusions that are actually a sign of a more mature writing style than I gave him credit for in my literary analysis.

• The book portrays God as ‘too nice.’
  The publisher’s description of this criticism pulls out two quotations that didn’t really strike me as problematic. I do share this criticism, but in a more general sense. I’ll explain more below.

• The book distorts or demeans the Trinity.
  I actually think Young’s portrayal of the Trinity is the most theologically sound parts of the book. The criticism described by the publisher has to do with the absence of hierarchy in the Trinity. I do take issue with the author’s understanding of Hierarchy in the Church, but I think he portrays the Trinity according to Catholic Tradition.

• The book leaves out the church and salvation.
  This criticism most likely comes from an Evangelical expectation of the Sinner’s Prayer leading to an instant conversion. I actually like the way that Young approaches the conversion of Young’s mind and heart together. The only thing that leaves Mack’s conversion ringing a little false is the way in which the plot is structured (see my literary criticism of the book for more detail).

• The book promotes Ultimate Reconciliation
  Ultimate Reconciliation is the belief that everyone will ultimately be reconciled to God and be saved, therefore nobody goes to Hell. While I cringed at some of the passages in the book that seemed to hint at this belief, I did not conclude that The Shack was ultimately teaching universal salvation. While there are indications that God will meet people wherever they are at, there are no indications that everyone is saved.

• The book promotes New Age, Hinduism, the Emerging Church Movement
  The publisher strongly rejects claims that The Shack promotes any of these movements. However, the rejection of a Magisterium by Evangelicals naturally leads to being open to these errors. If anyone can interpret the faith for himself, then what is to stop him from embracing post-modern spirituality (which makes exactly that claim)?

Let’s take a closer look at the way The Shack portrays God.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 3: Portrayal of God – What The Shack Got Right) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 1: Literary Review) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 4: Theological Problem with God as Father) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Every few years, the Evangelical culture produces a flash top-selling book that “changes” everybody’s lives, and then disappears into the ether. Does anyone remember the Prayer of Jabez? Sometimes these books are pretty well written and do deliver insights (Purpose Driven Life is one example). Other times they are driven into popularity simply because they promote the Evangelical worldview. The Shack falls into the latter category.

The Shack is the story of a father who faces the worst nightmare any father could face: the abduction and murder of his daughter. In the midst of his sorrow, “Mack” receives a hand-written note from “Papa” inviting him to meet at the scene of his daughter’s murder – an abandoned hunting shack in the middle of the wilderness. “Papa” is the name that Mack’s wife uses for God the Father. Mack goes to the Shack hoping to meet God, or at least to find some answers to his daughter’s death. There he has an encounter with the three Persons of the Trinity. Most of the book consists of this encounter.

Literary Content

Not to be too harsh, but Author William P. Young tries too hard to remember his lessons in high school creative writing class. The Shack is an amateur novel of the kind made possible by self-publishing services. In fact, it seems that the publisher of The Shack, Windblown Media, was created specifically for the purpose of publishing this book. That is not to say that The Shack is a horrible read, or to demean self-published authors or printers. In fact, I plan to self-publish my moral theology textbook. However, it does mean that parts of The Shack fall flat, and parts were even difficult to get through.

For example, the opening pages are flooded with adjectives. Take the very first passage of the book:

March unleashed a torrent of rainfall after an abnormally dry winter. A cold front out of Canada then descended and was held in place by a swirling wind that roared down the Gorge from eastern Oregon. Although spring was surely just around the corner, the god of winter was not about to relinquish its hard-won dominion without a tussle. There was a blanket of new snow in the Cascades, and rain was now freezing on impact with the frigid ground outside the house; enough reason for Mack to snuggle up with a book and a hot cider and wrap up in the warmth of a crackling fire.

Not horrible writing, but a tad overdone in a paragraph with no other purpose than to describe the weather. The intense descriptions give the early spring cold spell a much greater importance than it deserves. It is indicative of a book that tries too hard.

The names of the main character, “Mack,” and his wife “Nan” are cardboard names that stick out to the reader like a bad cliché through the entire novel. While it is believable that “Mackenzie” would go by a shortened nickname, having both “Mack” and “Nan” was just too much. Further, Young decided to put a label on the sorrow that Mack felt over the death of his daughter. He calls it “The Great Sadness.” This label depersonalizes his sorrow, again lending to a cardboard feel of the entire story.

Most confusingly, “The Great Sadness” doesn’t play much of a role in Mack’s encounter with God. Young mentions it once in a while, and places Mack’s main encounter with “The Great Sadness” in an appropriate place for a climax to the plot, but most of Mack’s encounter with God is focused on correcting apparent theological misconceptions that only indirectly tie to Mack’s main issue (how could God have allowed such a great evil). Mack’s pain and the discussion of God’s will in our suffering does make enough of an appearance to serve as a thread through the story. However, it does not build to the climax of Mack’s conversion. In the end, Mack’s conversion is not entirely believable and the agenda of the book is all too obvious.

In the next installment of this review, we’ll take a look at William Young’s portrayal of God.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 3: Portrayal of God – What The Shack Got Right) This book review will is published in parts on the...
2. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (part 2: Criticisms of the Shack) This book review will is published in parts on the...
3. Catholic Book Review: The Shack (Part 4: Theological Problem with God as Father) This book review will is published in parts on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• Government has overstepped its bounds, once again meddling in affairs that should be left to market forces?

No

• the law puts undue burden on small business who now have to pay a higher premium to insure their employees?

No

• the law does not do enough to help children born deaf or severely hard of hearing?

Nope, not that either

So what is the complaint? It comes from Audism Free America:

The notion that being deaf is an affliction and an abomination which alienates one from society and leaves (one) dependent and isolated is a myth,” the petition states. “We do not wish for your state to be mislabeled as promoting eugenics and linguistic and cultural genocide.

Taken from “Ear-implant law draws dissent“, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

What this petition seems to be saying is that deafness is not a disability but just another part of cultural diversity. Therefore, to mandate a procedure that could enable children who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to hear more is like trying to bleach African-American skin white so that African Americans can fit into a white culture better.

Such a ridiculous statement has its roots in modernism, the philosophy that truth is created by personal experience and perception. Modernism celebrates diversity, not because every human person has innate dignity, but because every individual has his own truth. In the case of the petition from Audism Free America, modernism is saying, “Who are you to call deafness a disability. From our perspective, deafness is normal and hearing is an abomination.” Yes, I have heard some proponents of “deaf culture” take the argument that far.

The problem with Audism free America’s position is that deafness is a disorder. Human nature includes the five senses as a normative and universal constituent. In other words, the senses make up part of what it means to be human, and a diminishment of the senses is a diminishment of something that a human person should have (however not a diminishment of their humanity or dignity). Therefore, deafness is a disability based on the standard of human health. Modernism does not believe in disability because it does not believe in a universal standard of human life or of human health.

The problem comes in how we look at disabilities. We tend to look at people with obvious and severe disabilities and say they are disabled and we are not. I have been around severely disabled people all of my life, and I have learned that there is no “they” and “us.” Fallen human nature is fallen for all of us. Disability is not a matter of having one or not having one, but a matter of degree and of kind. People who are disabled in one area of life are also extremely able in other areas of life. The term “disabled” becomes a problem only when we let it define a specific segment of the human family.

One can see the same line of thought in the homosexuality movement. The Church calls same-sex attraction “disordered” because it is opposed to the universal human purpose of sexuality. Modernists see this as an insult that alienates a specific segment of the population. However, the Church realizes that every person’s sexuality is disordered to one degree or another, so calling same-sex attraction disordered is actually a statement of solidarity, not one of divisiveness. Again, modernists rankle because they do not believe that a standard for “normal” sexuality even exists.

I had friends in high school and college who were deaf and hard of hearing, and I learned sign language in the course of our friendship. One of these friends had been brought up in the “deaf world” and had a difficult time relating to the “hearing.” The others tried very hard to interact with everybody, and counted a number of the “hearing” among their friends, even those who did not learn sign language. It was not the deafness that isolated them. In the case of my one friend, it was his desire to see his deafness as something that set him apart and his consequent unwillingness to form relationships with those who would not share his unique “culture.” He had implicitly bought the lie of modernism.

In the end, the petition from Audism Free America isolates deaf people from the rest of us by accentuating the differences rather than acknowledging the fact and universal nature of disability. And their modernist bent would keep children from getting help to overcome their disability. That is just not acceptable.

Related posts:

1. Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law A lot of buzz has been going around about the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

and for good reason. Almost immediately, pro-abortion commentaries began declaring that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, violent and “extreme.” Of course, such political diatribe was sadly predictable and frankly pathetic. That pro-abortion activists would use the death of one of their own as an opportunity for such propaganda is pretty much unconscionable, especially considering that the comments came out long before all of the facts are even known. We don’t even know the motivation behind the murder.

In stark contrast to this shameless propaganda, the defenses launched by pro-life groups is not mere political expediency. Murder of any human being, even of a human being who is committing murder, is morally evil and would be fundamentally and philosophically opposed to a true pro-life advocate. Reports on Tiller’s murder have mentioned some possible justifications for such a murder that a morality blog should examine.

Justification #1: the murder of an abortion provider is justified because the use of lethal force is morally justified in defense of innocent human life.

Using lethal force in defense of innocent life (or in self-defense) is only justified under very specific circumstances. Most germane to this discussion, the use of lethal force must be the only means possible for saving the innocent life. While pro-lifers may become frustrated at the continued death of the unborn, we cannot honestly make the claim that lethal force is our only remaining option. In fact, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and others have pointed out that converting the hearts of abortion providers is actually a greater asset to the pro-life cause, as these doctors then become powerful witnesses to the evils of abortion.

Justification #2: killing one abortion provider saves the lives of hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of children.

First of all, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League points out that this claim is simply not true. Getting rid of one abortion provider simply opens the door for other providers to step into the gap. Indeed, another abortion provider, a close of friend of Tiller’s, immediately went to Tiller’s clinic to make sure it kept running. More importantly, even if this were true the proportionate good brought about by the evil does not justify the evil of murder. The principle of “the ends do not justify the means” clearly states that no evil may be done so that good may come from it. If killing an abortion provider saves the lives of thousands of babies, those thousands of lives are purchased at too dear a cost. This principle makes the most sense to those who believe in life beyond this world. The babies who are killed by abortion will be take care of by God. Our faith in God’s love and mercy for the unborn victims of murder does not keep us from fighting the evil of abortion, because the battle against abortion is actually the battle for immortal human souls – of the mothers, abortion providers, and leaders who support such evil. So, we fight abortion out of love for these evil doers and a desire for their conversion. Their murder is antithetical to the cause of life for Catholics and for any other Christian.

Justification 3: As a late-term abortion provider, George Tiller deserved to die.

If this is true of George Tiller, it is true of all of us. Yes, George Tiller committed murder, and as a result may be put to death if the conditions for capital punishment are met. However, vigilante justice is never morally justified, and even capital punishment would probably not be justified in America.

In the end, pro-lifers must declare that the murder of George Tiller was philosophically and morally opposed to what the pro-life movement stands for. I join many Catholics today in praying for the soul of George Tiller and for his family. I also pray for the conversion of the person responsible for this heinous crime, whatever his motivations were.

Related posts:

1. Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited There are inherent dangers in criticizing certain causes such as...
2. Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement Many pro-life groups have been abuzz about the memo issued...
3. Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand When Barak Obama was elected president of the United States,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

First of all, the terms being thrown about – tolerance, discrimination, prejudice – were not clearly defined by any of these three people. They kept saying that discrimination and prejudice are bad and that we need tolerance. They seem to assume that these definitions are universal. The cultural battles about homosexuality, abortion and the “separation of Church and State” should be sufficient proof that they are not.

Taken at their basic level, discrimination and prejudice are actually not inherently evil. Discrimination simply means to be aware of differences. One of the letters to the editor said that discrimination is bad, but that we should learn to appreciate the differences. Actually, if discrimination was bad then we should learn to ignore the differences. Of course, then our lives would become bland. Maybe discrimination – properly defined and understood – isn’t so bad after all.

Prejudice defined simply means to judge before the fact. It is commonly used in our culture to indicate judging a person based on superficial experience with him or her before you really get to know the person. In this case, prejudice could certainly be considered a vice. However, prejudice understood more generally is actually unavoidable. The human brain is too efficient not to begin to immediately form ideas, perceptions and judgments before all information is collected. In many cases, this cognitive process saves us time and effort and can be very necessary. What we need to take care about is to make sure our first judgments about human persons are flexible, open to reinterpretation as we gain more knowledge, and not damaging to the person.

Finally, tolerance tends to be the key “virtue” of post-modernism. However, you will rarely hear an attempt to truly define the concept. What exactly are we supposed to tolerate? If what we mean by tolerance is the intellectual virtue of intellectual fairness – listening to opposing arguments with a mind open to the possibility of being convinced if the evidence supports them – then great. If we mean respecting the person with whom we argue, then great. However, the way the term is used by post-modernists seems to be much more accepting any idea whether supported by evidence or not. This is because post-modernism does not believe that truth can be truly known, and certainly cannot be proven through evidence. To believe in this kind tolerance is not only mistaken, it is downright dangerous precisely because it fails to define what exactly should be tolerated. Its logical conclusion is the acceptance of suicide and murder, as indeed we have seen with the cultural acceptance of “euthanasia” and “abortion.”

What all three of the expressions in favor of “tolerance” are really searching for is charity and respect of human dignity. Charity means willing the good of the other person over your own good. However, charity also assumes that there is an authentic, objectively knowable good that you want to will the other person. If we treated each other with charity, we would seek that truth together in an honest way. Further, respect for human dignity would ensure that intellectual fairness was followed, and that we argue the issue without attacking the person. For example, Catholics are called to respect the human dignity of homosexuals, indeed to love these people, but no to accept the idea that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that homosexual sex is morally acceptable. We can disagree on the ideas while respecting the person, all the while seeking what is truly good for them in honest and open dialogue.

The irony is that post-modernists criticize and despise the very concepts that would offer what is most commonly sought by the lay person echoing the language of tolerance. Human dignity is considered an antiquated and unfounded concept (unfounded because post-modernists reject the foundations, not because there is no actual foundation for it). Charity is considered an impossible and therefore guilt-producing ideal.

So much is staked on the proper use of words. To blindly proselytize about the evils of discrimination and prejudice and the value of tolerance is ultimately to sacrifice any claim to objective truth and authentic dialogue. In the end, it would result in the refusal to hold any morality as universally binding and in avoiding any debate over what is true. Words do matter.

Related posts:

1. Modernism Gets It Wrong – Again A new law requiring insurers to cover the costs of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.