RSS

Tag Archives: ted dekker

Ted Dekker: Rejecting Religion?

Some months ago I read a Goodreads interview with author Ted Dekker. It answered some questions left in my mind after reading other interviews (such as, how can you write about some of the things you do without suffering spiritual damage). It also repeated something that Dekker has alluded to in other interviews I have read—namely, his distaste for conventional Christianity. He told Goodreads that he is surprised people classify him as a Christian author, since much of what he writes is “against religion.”

In one sense, Dekker reminds me of a typical youngish postmodernist who prefers spirituality to “religion,” except that Dekker is more specific about what constitutes genuine “spirituality.” (His definition: searching for the true God, not simply feeling emotional about spiritual issues.) In another sense, he is a typical exponent of the “not a religion, a relationship” mantra—albeit that he takes that idea farther than most evangelicals.

Individualism is not an entirely bad thing. In The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton traces increased emphasis on the individual back to the first Christmas, when Christ was born as an outcast. “There is in that alone the touch of a revolution, as of the world turned upside down…. Individuals became important, in a sense in which no instruments can be important. A man could not be a means to an end, at any rate to any other man’s end.” Christianity certainly upholds the importance of the individual.

But the individualism of Christianity is quite different from the individualism (sometimes better termed “self-centeredness,” and in fact quite destructive of the older individualism) that now permeates American culture.  While Dekker’s books (I’ve read something like eleven) do not espouse that sort of individualism, his conception of religion is extremely individualistic—in the American sense of the word. The individualism isn’t so much a matter of the individual being free to choose between Christian religious traditions as that of being free to follow Christ while simultaneously ignoring all Christian religious traditions.

But what if religion is the problem? We have all known Christians who were self-absorbed, or lied often, or spread gossip, or wielded their faith (which they misunderstood) like a sword. Is breaking free from them the solution?

In one sense, Dekker is quite right—Christ did not come to earth to found a religion. At least, the word appears nowhere in the New Testament. What Christ did found set Christianity apart from every other system of belief. Christ founded a church—the Church. And the Church’s existence marks Christianity as distinct from other belief systems. It may be called a religion for the sake of convenience, but, more fundamentally, it is a Church. No other belief system of my acquaintance so emphasizes unity for its own sake. We are Christ’s body—“organs of one another.” We are Christ’s building, “fitly framed together.” We are His bride. I do not believe that Dekker would necessarily deny any of the Biblical doctrines about the Church. But I believe he undervalues them.

Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor was the one who really brought my attention to exactly what it means for the Church to be Christ’s Body. The Church was not exactly a comfortable place for her, since she was, as she said, “peculiarly possessed of the modern consciousness.” (I sympathize, although I suffer more from “pre-modern consciousness.”) O’Connor at any rate did not dump “religion” in favor of an isolated spirituality.  She wrote to a friend, “I think that the Church is the only thing that is going to make the terrible world we are coming to endurable; the only thing that makes the Church endurable is that it is somehow the body of Christ and that on this we are fed.”

In a country where self-centeredness runs rampant, disguised as individualism or success, we cannot afford to sidestep the Church in our desire to be authentically Christian. According to the New Testament, it is impossible to find the authenticity we seek without the Church. As C. S. Lewis wrote in his essay “Membership”:

The Christian is not called to individualism but to membership in the mystical body….. We are all constantly teaching and learning, forgiving and being forgiven, representing Christ to man when we intercede, and man to Christ when others intercede for us. The sacrifice of selfish privacy which is daily demanded of us is daily repaid a hundredfold in the true growth of personality which the life of the Body encourages. Those who are members of one another become as diverse as the hand and the ear. That is why the worldlings are so monotonously alike compared with the almost fantastic variety of the saints. Obedience is the road to freedom, humility the road to pleasure, unity the road to personality.

That isn’t to say that if your local church situation is toxic, that you should stay—although leaving, even when necessary, should be a matter for serious prayer. You aren’t switching hairdressers, after all. And the Church isn’t a beauty parlor. It’s more like a building under construction. Sometimes the insulation sticks out, and the loose electrical wires can be dangerous. But the builder tells us that it will be finished some day. And I’ve heard a rumor that it may become a temple.

Advertisements
 
4 Comments

Posted by on September 16, 2013 in Young Adult Fiction

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Charles Williams: Chasing the Holy Grail

The Archdeacon…looked at the [Graal] before him. “Neither is this Thou,” he breathed; and answered, “Yet this also is Thou.” … Of all the things in the world the Graal had been nearest to the Divine and Universal Heart.

So wrote Charles Williams, one of those people who are known mainly for their association with C.S. Lewis. Before reading any of his books myself, I only knew three things about him:

  1. He was a member of the Inklings.
  2. He was one of the reasons Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien became somewhat distanced from one another. (Among other things, Tolkien didn’t particularly like Williams’ books.)
  3. Williams can be notoriously hard to understand.

I finished reading my first Williams novel, War in Heaven, a few weeks ago. I’m now slowly working on Shadows of Ecstasy. I have concluded that Williams may be a little hard to understand, at times–but that he’s well worth reading.

War in Heaven begins with an inexplicable, but rather prosaic, murder at a publishing firm. An occultist, an archdeacon, a duke, and one Prester John later, the story’s cast of characters is chasing around the English countryside trying to lay hold on the Holy Grail (spelled Graal here). Once the book gets going, the action doesn’t stop. I’ve read that T.S. Eliot considered Williams’ books to be “spiritual thrillers.” In fact, they reminded me of some of Ted Dekker’s novels, but without Dekker’s postmodern bent. In any case, Williams’ stories are anything but ordinary.

The storyline of War in Heaven is easy enough to follow. The themes, however, are more difficult. According to the book cover, by “examining the distinction between magic and religion, this eerily disturbing book graphically portrays a metaphysical journey through the shadowy crevices of the human mind.”

“Eerily disturbing”? Fair enough. And the book does touch on the distinction between magic and religion. But I found the most important theme of War in Heaven to be the Graal itself–or, more specifically, how people react (and ought to react) to sacred objects. The Graal becomes an object of contention between the story’s occultists and its Christians. Both sides (excepting the Archdeacon) have a tendency to overestimate its value. The Graal can be used for good, as well as for evil. But in the end, the forces animating the Graal are more powerful than the Graal itself, and those forces determine the outcome.

We humans were made with a tendency to worship. And we have developed a tendency to worship the wrong things. If we could truly find the Holy Grail, what would we do with it? Nothing good, probably. Williams’ attitude is hardly antagonistic toward religious relics. But he does offer a warning. Relics may be holy; but some things are holier. And even the best of objects can be used for the wrong reasons.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 1, 2013 in Fantasy

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: