Young Answers to Old Criticisms (Part1)

The family of Sarah Young has written "An Answer to the Critics of Jesus Calling." They do her credit, and the example is admirable. Given the controversy, it is valuable that they set a standard in the discussion. In turn, examining the introduction to Jesus Calling is in order. 

The Youngs’ Answer

First I will address the Youngs’ answers to the critics. While we disagree radically, I affirm and buttress a couple of their key points, and they confirm my focus on the book's introduction. Part 1 shows more is needed; Part 2 examines Sarah Young's introduction, and her revision.

The Youngs depict the events of the last 18 months as “another wave of misinformed criticism that has now infiltrated the very denomination Sarah loved and served." The book has attracted criticism for most of its 20 years of ever-growing success. It first arose outside the PCA, and then within the PCA. The Youngs attribute the still persisting criticism to a common failure of the critics: 

These critics have ignored the revised introduction and the very clear statements from Sarah before her death, which is akin to arguing with someone with your ears plugged.

Revision of the introduction in 2014 was expected to dispel the misinformed criticism, but it did not. (While here they invoke other very clear statements from Sarah Young, they do not cite any in the article.) "With your ears plugged" places the blame squarely on the critics.

The criticisms are old, in the Youngs’ reckoning going back to before 2011, before the revision. The Youngs refute 5 criticisms and conclude with an appeal to Christian Liberty. The 5 identified criticisms can be dubbed as 1 actually new but irrelevant argument, 2 publicly respectable mistakes, and 2 wild-eyed wingnut accusations. Christian Liberty is employed to dismiss the critics along with the criticisms. They end with disappointment at the reports being received by the 52nd General Assembly and confidence that God will continue to use the book.

It is noteworthy that only the two respectable criticisms (see below) appeared in the public debate at the PCA’s 51st General Assembly. That may be attributable to the influence of the revised introduction over the previous 10 years. In their opinion, the revision only succeeded in proving the critics’ poor character. While our views are antithetical, we both look first to the book's introduction in describing the controversy.

Idolatry (One New & Irrelevant Argument)

I made that case. It was not persuasive in the PCA, and became functionally irrelevant. Although my Jesus Calling Overture was passed, both the amending process and the debate which passed the motion showed no trace of the idolatry criticism. The Youngs’ rebuttal demonstrates no understanding of the argument, but that is fine. They give an irrelevant answer to an irrelevant criticism. They construe it as a variation of the low view of Scripture criticism, an old criticism merely in new dress. Alas, not dressed for success.

First Person Voice & Low View of Scripture (Respectable Mistakes)

These are roughly the sum of the "winning arguments" on the floor of the 51st General Assembly. I think that I actually make the Youngs' case better for plugged ears on this point. I also explain why formally promulgating these arguments alone could harm the PCA.

These are the two respectable criticisms. All in the PCA champion the unique authority of Scripture. Although respectable, such criticisms are misinformed, say the Youngs. They have a gravitas which correlates well with the strong offense taken at the book; however, Sarah Young’s representations significantly undercut them. She did speak clearly and correctly about Scripture. It's that moment, when you don’t call an honest person a boldface liar. You don’t know what to call it. Somehow a very good answer fails to touch your concern.

On the floor of the General Assembly, this did look like plugged ears. The Youngs’ replies to these two criticisms in their article replicate the very counterarguments, which–when spoken in the GA floor debate–were publicly ineffectual and conspicuously unanswered. On these two criticisms–at least as I hear them formulated in the PCA–the Youngs are right.

A False Jesus (The first wingnut accusation).

The Youngs summarize the first wingnut accusation as another misunderstanding of the first person literary conceit. Claiming that the Jesus of Jesus Calling is in fact a false Jesus rests on the mistaken view that writing in Jesus’ voice is a form of impersonation. This criticism says, ". . . the words of Jesus Calling sound more like Sarah Young than Jesus." Yes, Tim Challies and Kathy Keller both employed this as a criticism. The Youngs’ answer is a variation of you can’t say everything, plus the devotional genre only says some things.

As they present the "false Jesus" criticism, I wonder if the Youngs have confused a PCA-world criticism with one from outside the PCA and before 2014. This jingle used to sell a different product. The old accusation of “a false Jesus" was a more serious claim about the book being entangled with malign entities through New Age spiritual practices. 

"A false Jesus" was an argument about theology rather than about tone or diction or reading level. Does Young’s voice of Jesus correspond faithfully (as a merely human communicative tool) to the biblical revelation? This is theological, and an assessment would address it.

You can glimpse the absence of God the Father from Jesus Calling here. The false Jesus criticism is not about sounding like some earnest soccer mom, but sounding like someone who doesn't know the Father. And sounding like a number of other things which would trouble an attentive evangelical assessment. Their reply obscures the criticism previously associated with the label “false Jesus.”

Written By Demons (The Even Wingnut-ier Accusation)

The second wingnut assertion sounds bizarre–as the Youngs note. Unlike the other criticisms, they don’t explain its origin. Is any cause imaginable? People do just say crazy things. The chief cause of this criticism was the book's introduction, which the Youngs leave unmentioned when rebutting “written by demons.”

For now, the Youngs’ offered response to the demonic origin theory deserves frank examination. Their argument comes down to two points based on two assumptions. It is rather simple and straightforward, and it brandishes “evidence that Sarah could not have written Jesus Calling under a demonic influence.”

Unfortunately, their contrary assertion and the evidence for it wield the rhetorical power of transforming the critic into a goblin. A critic disqualifies himself by pushing back on the claim. Without diminishing the Youngs’ sincerity, the rhetorical effect rhymes with “when did you stop beating your wife?” They have pitched the rebuttal of the demonic source argument on the wholesomeness of Sarah Young’s Christian life, and anecdotes of the book’s results. 

Still, their argument consists of two points and two assumptions. First point: We were there, we knew her. First assumption: We know enough about this demonic stuff to rule it out. We might satirize this for clarity: We have watched some of those movies, and we weren’t in one of them. Someone with expertise in demonic matters could validate those claims–or not. There are pious, mature, respected Christians who were converted from communion with spirits.

Second point: Jesus Calling‘s fruit in earthly benefits and religious commitment is so extensive, positive, and extraordinary that it must be a Jesus thing. Second assumption: If they use the name Jesus and have positive/relieving/noble outcomes, then it must be a God thing. We don’t have to satirize that argument: Mormonism already did (and with an actual false Jesus thrown in). Yes, it is abundantly clear that the devil cultivates this sort of thing.

Early accusations of New Age spiritism came from people who read the original introduction to Jesus Calling. Let’s stick to her writings–read them. The big red flags were in the original introduction. Even without those red flags, Jesus Calling strikes most as a peculiar landscape, maybe creepy, maybe goofy, maybe attractive for its ambiance. There are in fact Christians who formerly lived in that country. They don’t need those red flags. They recognize the terrain. 

The Youngs have not responsibly answered the “written by demons” criticism. They have prepared outrage for repetition of this criticism. No decent person would speak that way about the woman, the mother, the wife, the Christian pilgrim and author. Only a troll would dishonor the family's wholehearted claims. They have not made any counterclaim about the book showing marks of New Age spiritism. They have themselves ignored the the revision of the introduction in their answer to “written by demons.”

Christian Liberty (And a Whack with a Stick)

The Youngs are correct in their assertion that apart from the 5 addressed criticisms, there are other minor issues which should hold no attention for mature believers. If the “misinformed” criticisms are refuted, then Christian Liberty can end the controversy. Sadly, the Youngs taint their appeal to Christian Liberty.

They do not conclude with, "the critics are incorrect and their claims ought to be discarded." Instead, they claim that the real grounds of offense are something else. They bring a counter accusation:

Jesus Calling offends those who tend to measure the spiritual health of individuals or churches on their ability to follow rules or conform to traditions.

This is unfortunate. Having presumably refuted the criticisms of the book, they besmirch the critics. The miscreants are not only “misinformed,” they are invigorated by unacknowledged and petty concerns. Because the criticisms persisted after the revised introduction, the Youngs posit some form of phariseeism as the real reason critics are so offended at the book. The 5 criticisms become 5 versions of insincerity, and the critics become deficient Christians. It is a regrettably superfluous argument after answering the 5 criticisms. 

The Youngs do have a point, as they say: "we are left with explaining one last thing-- offense." If 55% of the 51st General Assembly and 60% of the Overtures Committee aren’t quasi- fundamentalists, what offended them? Every reasonable person expected the overture to die in committee–like every other overture from a single Teaching Elder in the last 50 years. With the Jesus Calling Overture's passage, we are left with explaining one last thing: Why did they?  

The GA’s action need not be interpreted as settled endorsement of any of the refuted criticisms. It was not a vote for a conclusion, but only for an assessment. People who are truly disturbed about something, but also confused about it–they will vote for an assessment.

Talk about the mind of the church: “We don’t know what to make of this, but we know this is important for various reasons. Figure it out.” Even large groups of people can be offended and struggle to know why. Not bigotry, nor intuition; just being out of their depth. The ugly trope would issue a condemnation, but assessment fits the deliberative nature of a healthy church. The PCA should ponder its own unicorn of Presbyterian process. What happened?

En Route to Part 2

Where does this leave us? 

• Sarah Young’s view of Scripture needs to be acknowledged. Can someone be right about Scripture (though not profound) and deviate grotesquely from the Bible? 

  
  

• When the Youngs answer the wingnut criticism of “a false Jesus,” the PCA discussions of the last 18 months obviate any need for them to answer theological critiques. Really?

  
  

• “Written by demons” is freak-show discourse: be careful. Only troubled and horrible people could imagine and say such things. Do you want to transform into a goblin?

  
  

It leaves us ready to examine Sarah Young’s introduction to Jesus Calling, and her revision. 

• Examining the introduction is necessary: The original introduction obligated the Youngs to answer questions about demons.

  
  

• Examining the introduction is controversial: Reformed folk might have the same wingnut reaction now that others had before Sarah Young revised her introduction. 

  
  

• Comparing the before and after of the introduction is daunting: Questions arise about the book which are distressing and call for uncommon competencies and care. 

  
  

It leaves us to be dismissed for agreeing with the Youngs about the controversy’s pivot point.