In the positive:
I do think Voskamp is a believer and has a genuine desire to seek after God. I do not judge her heart or motives. I think she has good intentions.
I also think gratitude is definitely something we all fail to adequately put into practice. And if there is a good take away from this book, it is that we should be more aware of the blessings God has given to us and thank Him for those blessings.
I don’t agree with some critics that declare her a (conscious) panentheist. I can definitely see why readers might conclude that, and I could easily see her going down that path if not careful. She definitely doesn’t make much of a distinction between special revelation and natural revelation in the book; however, there were hints that led me to think that in reality she probably does make a distinction--it just wasn’t clearly spelled out in the book. She mentions looking through the lens of the Word--but often natural and special revelation almost seem to be on par with one another in the book. I think her romanticism and stylistic writing make her come off sounding more like a panentheist than she really is. The problem is that whether she is or isn’t, when writing a book that has theological influence, being unclear or hazy is a problem.
Fairly obvious theological issues:
The last chapter was way beyond acceptable for me. I have no issues being drawn closer to God, but the moment sexual language is brought into describing our closeness to God I have some big issues. Yes, God is immanent, but he is also transcendent, and we have to tread cautiously when it comes to how we word things. Her language is very troubling.
The whole part about her having communion with a group of ladies that got together was a blatant issue. It took me a little by surprise...all of sudden they went from washing feet to having a communion service with each other, and yeah, major issues--sacraments are not something we just do with a group of friends. God appointed ordained ministered are to administer sacraments.
There was a point in the book when her son had an hand injury due to a barn fan incident. During this incident her mom said to her that it was God’s grace he didn’t lose fingers. She questioned that statement in her head wondering if he had lost use of his hand would God not have been gracious then? And she concludes All is Grace. Well, that’s just not true. I understand what she is hinting at: all things work together for good, and ultimately God is sovereign over the good and bad things, but concluding that ‘All is grace’ can lead to a perverted understanding of many things--judgment, sin etc. I’m not saying grace isn’t present in suffering...absolutely God makes himself and His grace known to us in special ways during suffering and difficulties and he works out all things for his glory and our good, but there’s a difference in knowing God’s grace during suffering and seeing bad things as actual grace. Death is not grace. It is the enemy. We experience God’s comfort and grace as we mourn the death of others, and we experience his love and grace as we face death ourselves, but death is still the enemy and it is still a result of the fall. It kind of goes back to the question of where did sin come from? And by trying to figure it out we can easily find ourselves coming to the conclusion: God created the world and everything in it, so therefore, God must have created sin. Before you know it we have made him the author of sin, when he has clearly said the opposite. Yes, all things work out for good, but not all is grace. And just because God is making all things work for good and using us in the process does not mean that we will always understand or be aware of how God is working out all things nor will we always be aware of how God is using us to bring about his will. There are mysteries that belong to God they must be left mysteries.
Less blatant theological issues:
I think in her efforts to make her Christianity very practical, she ends up becoming impractical because it is based on a formula. In other words, she takes the task of making this huge list of things to be grateful for, but the list ends up becoming her goal more than relationship with Christ. In a twisted way it ends up being its own form of legalism. She becomes married to the list, and her hope is constantly tied to finding something to be grateful for instead of tied to Christ-who He is and the sacrifice He made for us. She often actually speaks of gratitude as redemptive...on pg 128 using the phrase: “gratitude redeems”. Gratitude doesn’t redeem us any more than doing merciful acts for someone, or going to church (yes, these are all good and commendable things that are fruits of justification, but they don’t redeem). It was telling to me that it isn’t until page 154 that she finally clearly recognizes Christ’s atonement (it is hinted at throughout, but rarely stated head on). If there’s anything that should stimulate gratitude it is Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf. That should have been on page 1. We can’t look at natural revelation and see grace until we have first tasted grace, forgiveness and redemption in Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This ends up being a big flaw, because the average Joe (or in this case more likely Jill) reading the book will not be reading it through the lens of redeemed eyes. And to focus on just finding things in nature and life to be thankful for before grounding readers in where true grace and forgiveness come from, puts the cart in front of the horse.
The decision to publish the book also gets me a little (I know this sounds weird!). The book really isn’t about 1000 Gifts, and it isn’t really about the God she serves, the book is really about her. American evangelicals have an addiction to this idea of being transparent to some degree or other--where they spill everything out in an effort to feel that we are all on this sanctification journey together. It’s almost a badge of honor to hang out your dirty underwear, and well, if you don’t it’s because you’re ‘not spiritual’. Now, there are definite times and places (ie in the pastor’s office in a counseling session) where yes, there is definitely going to be some dirty laundry that comes out, but it comes out for a definite purpose: so that a counselor can help sort, point out where repentance is needed, and move toward restoration and growth. Lots of ‘transparency’ in churches today comes out in groups, helps us all realize that we’re all the same and struggling, and often elevates intention while downplaying behavior. By this I mean for some reason it seems more ok if we sin so long as we announce our struggle and we have good intentions. So long as I didn’t mean to gossip and was really just giving a prayer request then surely I can’t be held responsible for the sin of gossip--after all my heart was good and I’ve shared my struggle with gossip. Well intention AND action matter. Premeditated murder is definitely not the same as involuntary manslaughter, but we are still responsible for our behavior AND our intent. Also, transparency in most churches today is rarely connected to pointing out where repentance is needed. I mean let’s face it, it’s not fun or easy to look at someone having their good interest at heart and genuine love and concern for them in our hearts and say, ‘You’re wrong. You’re sinning and you need to repent.’ Most of the time we hear things like, “yeah, I struggle with that too” or “It’s ok. We’re all a work in progress” or some other trite statement that does absolutely nothing for spiritual growth and development. I think there’s a push for transparency yet simultaneously a lack of true humility. The thing we long for is true, honesty and humility. In the book, I think that Voskamp attempted that, but even in the situation with her son, the sin wasn’t ever really addressed with him, instead it was all just about gratitude (her struggle; maybe not his) when that wasn’t necessarily the real sin in the situation. Furthermore, she talks to her son about fighting a feeling with another feeling not with thinking (pg 136) Her logic here is lacking. She says it’s impossible to feel thanks and feel angry. And she says we control what feelings we want to feel. Feelings are not something we control...thoughts are. And gratitude is not a ‘feeling.’ It may be accompanied by a fuzzy wuzzy, but it is the acknowledgement of blessing from God’s hand. And to say that anger and gratitude don’t ever co-exist is to say Christ was ungrateful when he overthrew the tables (she creates this same false dichotomy on page 126). She is trying to interject grace and gratitude into the situation, but because everything is so rooted in experience, emotion and feeling rather than Truth and thinking, she really swims around in some illogical and biblically unsound waters. Her goal is good and commendable, but she ends up saying wrong things because her theology is off. In reality we all say wrong things often. Let’s face it we aren’t masters of taking ‘every thought captive,’ but this would be a reason why journal type books intended to point us to Christ yet filled with a stream of consciousness probably shouldn’t be published until you’re dead and someone else decides it is of theological value, or at least until you have had a sound theologian scrutinize it for doctrinal errors. The reality is people are influenced by Ms. Voskamp--her blog has a bazillion followers. And the standard for someone that is writing about and speaking about theological matters is much higher than other writers/teachers. As I’ve said, I think her heart is in the right place, but she is just theologically sloppy. And theology is not something that we can afford to be sloppy about.
One last thing...I know, I’ve been pretty brutal. There were a few hints in the book that she obviously had some serious emotional issues in her life...not just her sister’s death, but at one point she hinted at being suicidal. And I got the impression this book (and the 1000 gifts experiment) served as a type of therapy for her. Since she seemed to find some kind of happiness in the gratitude experiment she projects her issues (and solution) on everyone else. Granted most of us aren’t grateful enough, but maybe gratitude isn’t our biggest struggle. Even if I struggle with the same things she went after trying to attain an emotional experience which culminated in what she termed ‘making love to God’ (gasp!) and I just don’t agree with the goal. I think the focus and goal must be Christ and Truth. When we come face to face with solid Truth and the Lord of all there will be an emotional response (at times, even often, that emotional response is less of a fuzzy feeling and more fear of God). Sometimes it might be big; other times it may seem cold and dry, but our goal shouldn’t be the feeling, because there are times we are not going to ‘feel’ God the way we wish. There are times we will feel alone, tired, depressed, worthless, ashamed and everything else...but the answer is not to just say we should replace depression with joy, the answer is to fix our eyes on Christ, find our identity in Him, root our thoughts in His Word and meditate on His Word until it revives joy. The Truth will set us free...not the feeling or experience.