The Shack: Ramshackle Theology by Tom Neven on 06/19/2008 at 9:12 AM

The Shack has become a publishing phenomenon, a bestseller by a first-time author that has rocketed up the sales charts with rumors of an impending movie, not bad for a book that was self-published by the author, William P. Young, and is being sold out of a garage.

The glowing reviews for The Shack hail it as everything from the new Pilgrim’s Progress (theologian Eugene Peterson, translator of the Bible paraphrase The Message) to "the best novel of 2007" and "one of the rare fiction books that could change your life" (various Amazon.com five-star reviewers). According to the book jacket, Young was raised by missionary parents living among a stone-age tribe in New Guinea. He wrote the novel for his six children to explain his own journey through pain and misery to "light, love and transformation," according to a profile in USA Today. The "shack" of the story was the ugly place inside him where everything awful was hidden away, a result of his history as a victim of sexual abuse, his own adultery and the ensuing shame and pain, all stuffed deep in his psyche, Young explained.

This background is important, because Young's past appears to greatly color his view of both God and Christianity, resulting in a severely flawed view of both. The story begins with Mackenzie "Mack" Phillips, a father suffering great pain -- a Great Sadness, according to the story -- because of the death of his young daughter at the hands of a serial killer. Mack receives a note from "Papa" to meet him at the rundown shack in the woods where police had found evidence of his daughter’s murder six years earlier. Mack already understands that "Papa" is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor. Mack approaches the shack with rising anger, wanting to lash out at God for allowing his young girl to be killed. Instead of the old man with a long white beard, as Mack expects, he's suddenly embraced by "a large beaming African-American woman" who introduces herself as Papa. (How many of you are already visually casting Oprah Winfrey or Maya Angelou in the movie version?)

Mack is then introduced to the rest of the Trinity: Jesus, a Middle Eastern man dressed as a laborer, and the Holy Spirit, a woman of "maybe northern Chinese or Nepalese or even Mongolian ethnicity" named Sarayu. The rest of the story is a conversation among the three members of the Trinity and Mack as they work through issues of creation, fall and redemption.

Subtle and not-so-subtle heresies
Young's intentions are good. He wants to introduce readers to a loving God who was willing to sacrifice his own Son to save us from our sins. But all heresies begin with misconstruing the nature of God. From Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormonism to even Islam, they all get it wrong when it comes to understanding the God of Scripture. Young joins their company. Part of the problem arises because his story is confused and inconsistent. I don't think he sets out to mislead, but he himself is misled, either by himself or others.

He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture, but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness and, ultimately, the final Judge. Any presentation of God that shows only one side of His nature is wrong. In an effort to counter a false view of God as only the judging avenger of wrath, we must not go the opposite direction and present Him only as a loving, indulgent parent who never judges sin. Both extremes are false in that they present an incomplete picture of God as He shows himself to us in Scripture. (And, really now, if you're going to try to explain God to unbelievers, why would you start with the Trinity, a doctrine theologians have been striving to understand for millennia?)

I will not attempt to go into an exhaustive account of the many distortions in The Shack. Tim Challies has ably done this on his Web site. But I do want to point out some of the more obvious ones. First, we anthropomorphize God the Father at our peril. He is spirit, and when he refers to himself in anthropomorphic terms, it is always as a father. This is important, I think, because any attempt to make God a female inevitably leads to goddess religion and God’s becoming some sort of fertility figure, a worship of the creation instead of the Creator. 

And for some reason Papa changes form later in the book to become a gray-haired, pony-tailed male. (I vote for Sam Elliott to play him in the movie.) No, God does not change himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is.

Papa acknowledges that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, but she adds, 

[H]e has 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 relationship with every human being. He is just to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my appearance without regard for appearance or consequence.

Really? I read that Jesus in fact was before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together.  The words Papa speaks are a form of the ancient heresy of subordinationism, which puts Jesus in a lower rank within the Trinity. Scripture teaches that all three persons of the Trinity are equal in essence.

But Scripture also teaches that there is a hierarchy of authority and submission within the Trinity, but as evidence of his sloppy thinking, Young gets this wrong, too. Papa tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion.

Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or "great chain of being" as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us.

But Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father, and Jesus says it is his intention to obey the Father's will.  The Holy Spirit obeys both the Father and the Son. These are not the result of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission.

Finally, in his confusion, Young also teaches a form of patripassionism, another ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. At one point, Mack notices "scars in [Papa's] wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his," and later Papa says, "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." (I'm not even going to go into detail on the implied heresy that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are created beings, spoken into existence.)

A low view of Scripture
Young wants to make God accessible to a hurting world, but he also has a very low view of Scripture, and in fact he mocks anyone who holds that there is such a thing as correct doctrine.

In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges.

If one is to teach error, it is important to do away with Scripture, either by adding to it (Mormonism), mistranslating it (Jehovah's Witnesses) or simply mocking it (The Shack, Brian McLaren and some other "emergent" types). But if you are going to claim to teach about God, you must stick to what He has declared to be His revelation about himself and His will to us. In other words, correct doctrine, a point stressed here, here, here and here.Yes, we are not just to be hearers (and readers) of the Word; we are to live it. But we can't live it unless we know it, believe it, and trust it. Otherwise, the God you present is merely a creation of your own imagination and not the God that everyone must stand before on that final day, either as friend or condemned sinner.

Young's ramshackle theology, unfortunately, is giving a lot of people an incomplete and false image of God. He is doing them no favors.

The Shack: Ramshackle Theology by Tom Neven on 06/19/2008 at 9:12 AM

The Shack has become a publishing phenomenon, a bestseller by a first-time author that has rocketed up the sales charts with rumors of an impending movie, not bad for a book that was self-published by the author, William P. Young, and is being sold out of a garage.

The glowing reviews for The Shack hail it as everything from the new Pilgrim’s Progress (theologian Eugene Peterson, translator of the Bible paraphrase The Message) to "the best novel of 2007" and "one of the rare fiction books that could change your life" (various Amazon.com five-star reviewers). According to the book jacket, Young was raised by missionary parents living among a stone-age tribe in New Guinea. He wrote the novel for his six children to explain his own journey through pain and misery to "light, love and transformation," according to a profile in USA Today. The "shack" of the story was the ugly place inside him where everything awful was hidden away, a result of his history as a victim of sexual abuse, his own adultery and the ensuing shame and pain, all stuffed deep in his psyche, Young explained.

This background is important, because Young's past appears to greatly color his view of both God and Christianity, resulting in a severely flawed view of both. The story begins with Mackenzie "Mack" Phillips, a father suffering great pain -- a Great Sadness, according to the story -- because of the death of his young daughter at the hands of a serial killer. Mack receives a note from "Papa" to meet him at the rundown shack in the woods where police had found evidence of his daughter’s murder six years earlier. Mack already understands that "Papa" is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor. Mack approaches the shack with rising anger, wanting to lash out at God for allowing his young girl to be killed. Instead of the old man with a long white beard, as Mack expects, he's suddenly embraced by "a large beaming African-American woman" who introduces herself as Papa. (How many of you are already visually casting Oprah Winfrey or Maya Angelou in the movie version?)

Mack is then introduced to the rest of the Trinity: Jesus, a Middle Eastern man dressed as a laborer, and the Holy Spirit, a woman of "maybe northern Chinese or Nepalese or even Mongolian ethnicity" named Sarayu. The rest of the story is a conversation among the three members of the Trinity and Mack as they work through issues of creation, fall and redemption.

Subtle and not-so-subtle heresies
Young's intentions are good. He wants to introduce readers to a loving God who was willing to sacrifice his own Son to save us from our sins. But all heresies begin with misconstruing the nature of God. From Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormonism to even Islam, they all get it wrong when it comes to understanding the God of Scripture. Young joins their company. Part of the problem arises because his story is confused and inconsistent. I don't think he sets out to mislead, but he himself is misled, either by himself or others.

He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture, but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness and, ultimately, the final Judge. Any presentation of God that shows only one side of His nature is wrong. In an effort to counter a false view of God as only the judging avenger of wrath, we must not go the opposite direction and present Him only as a loving, indulgent parent who never judges sin. Both extremes are false in that they present an incomplete picture of God as He shows himself to us in Scripture. (And, really now, if you're going to try to explain God to unbelievers, why would you start with the Trinity, a doctrine theologians have been striving to understand for millennia?)

I will not attempt to go into an exhaustive account of the many distortions in The Shack. Tim Challies has ably done this on his Web site. But I do want to point out some of the more obvious ones. First, we anthropomorphize God the Father at our peril. He is spirit, and when he refers to himself in anthropomorphic terms, it is always as a father. This is important, I think, because any attempt to make God a female inevitably leads to goddess religion and God’s becoming some sort of fertility figure, a worship of the creation instead of the Creator. 

And for some reason Papa changes form later in the book to become a gray-haired, pony-tailed male. (I vote for Sam Elliott to play him in the movie.) No, God does not change himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is.

Papa acknowledges that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, but she adds, 

[H]e has 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 relationship with every human being. He is just to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my appearance without regard for appearance or consequence.

Really? I read that Jesus in fact was before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together.  The words Papa speaks are a form of the ancient heresy of subordinationism, which puts Jesus in a lower rank within the Trinity. Scripture teaches that all three persons of the Trinity are equal in essence.

But Scripture also teaches that there is a hierarchy of authority and submission within the Trinity, but as evidence of his sloppy thinking, Young gets this wrong, too. Papa tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion.

Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or "great chain of being" as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us.

But Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father, and Jesus says it is his intention to obey the Father's will.  The Holy Spirit obeys both the Father and the Son. These are not the result of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission.

Finally, in his confusion, Young also teaches a form of patripassionism, another ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. At one point, Mack notices "scars in [Papa's] wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his," and later Papa says, "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." (I'm not even going to go into detail on the implied heresy that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are created beings, spoken into existence.)

A low view of Scripture
Young wants to make God accessible to a hurting world, but he also has a very low view of Scripture, and in fact he mocks anyone who holds that there is such a thing as correct doctrine.

In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges.

If one is to teach error, it is important to do away with Scripture, either by adding to it (Mormonism), mistranslating it (Jehovah's Witnesses) or simply mocking it (The Shack, Brian McLaren and some other "emergent" types). But if you are going to claim to teach about God, you must stick to what He has declared to be His revelation about himself and His will to us. In other words, correct doctrine, a point stressed here, here, here and here.Yes, we are not just to be hearers (and readers) of the Word; we are to live it. But we can't live it unless we know it, believe it, and trust it. Otherwise, the God you present is merely a creation of your own imagination and not the God that everyone must stand before on that final day, either as friend or condemned sinner.

Young's ramshackle theology, unfortunately, is giving a lot of people an incomplete and false image of God. He is doing them no favors.

Comments

[1. Cassie said the following at 9:49 AM on Jun 19:]

1

I read Tim Challies' review of The Shack and I was actually quite disappointed. Young wasn't trying to say that this is the way things are and he has said in an interview that he doesn't necessarily see everything the way he wrote it.

For me this book brought an opportunity to step outside of my own perspective which is skewed at best and ask God maybe to expand my view of Him outside of the box that I've placed Him in. We all have boxes and as humans we can have the tendency to put God into the boxes of our own experiences rather than get to know Him for who He is. You're right, God is the judge and in the end we will all be judged. But I still think that He will do it out of love and not out of condemnation. There are consequences to sin, but knowing the heart of God as a merciful father, I don't doubt that it hurts His heart that we have to endure these consequences.

Yeah, there are parts that I don't agree with in the book, but this book also made God more concrete to me even though I've grown up in the church and even lead a few ministries. I think that this book can be a good way for people to see that God is good and loving, and it may lead them to make a choice to get to know Him and He can take care of the theology from there. The guy wasn't trying to write Scripture, just a novel. I have very strong convictions am nowhere near being liberal. But I do believe that there are some things to take a stand against and I don't think that this book is one of them.

[2. Jacob said the following at 10:04 AM on Jun 19:]

2

Tom,
Regarding your last point about Young having a low view of Scripture, I think it is important to stress that (at least as you have explained it) he is denying the sufficiency of Scripture. Those interested in looking at this topic more would do well to start Here

[3. Annika said the following at 10:11 AM on Jun 19:]

3

Oh my goodness, the story you review, and in fact your post, both make it sound like Christians believe in three gods. What ever happened to "The Lord our God, the Lord is One?"

No wonder my Muslim friends think that Christianity is pretty odd. At least they think that "There is no God but God."

I have seen a lot of this emphasis on the trinity lately, and I find it really confusing. There is one God.

[4. Annika said the following at 10:12 AM on Jun 19:]

4

PS I TOTALLY agree that no one should be anthropomorphizing God, especially not as a woman. The female god thing has gotten a little out of control nowdays as certain Christians try to make religion more appealing to the new-agey types.

[5. Ted Slater said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 19:]

5

Annika -- the Trinity is a mystery. God exists in community, though He is one. It is an odd doctrine. A biblical one, though.

[6. Nicole said the following at 10:23 AM on Jun 19:]

6

Ive only read maybe the first few pages, but everyone i've talked to absolulely loved it and highly recomended it. The author even came to my church recently and did an interview after the service, and the weekend before that they had a retreat. So I guess not everyone shares your opinion...

[7. Tami said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 19:]

7

I haven't read the book; honestly, I don't want to (it doesn't even really interest me, frankly... not a big fan of most modern Christian fiction to begin with). I don't know anyone who's heard of it (outside of Internet-land), though I did overhear a little girl in a Christian bookstore get enthused that the author was coming to town. Don't get me wrong; I'm not shrugging my shoulders over it, I just am amazed at how popular it's gotten, and how quickly.

I know I'm going to catch some flak for saying this, but the whole phenomenon strikes me as Da Vinci Code-esque. A book by a heretofore unknown (or barely known) author who wants to share the "real truth" of things (compared to what the Bible, or a patriarchal religion, supposedly tell us), comes out of nowhere to be a cultural phenomenon, despite its not-so-hot fiction/writing style verging on purple prose (which even *fans* will admit to).

I guess in sum, I wish that Christians would focus more on developing their own deeper, personal, powerful, and mystical relationship based on what God reveals about Himself in the Bible and by His Spirit, rather than relying secondhand on what one guy wrote as a work of fiction. The God of the Bible is SO much more powerful than anyone we could ever imagine on our own!

My $.02
_____

Annika (3) -- the trinity is a concept confirmed throughout the history of Christianity. While not referred to as the "trinity" as such in Scripture, God has, indeed, revealed Himself as three Persons, who is One. A good place to see this in Scripture is in Ephesians 4. While I grant you it's not an easy thought to grasp (and I make no claims to have my head completely around it either!), it is indeed true. :)

[8. Ted Slater said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 19:]

8

Nicole -- Tom didn't say that the book was not enjoyable. He's simply saying that it's not biblically sound.

[9. Tom Neven said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 19:]

9

Ted (#8)

Although if you want my aesthetic review, it comes down to one word: meh.

[10. Joey said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 19:]

10

@Cassie (1):

"Young wasn't trying to say that this is the way things are and he has said in an interview that he doesn't necessarily see everything the way he wrote it."

I haven't heard the interview, but my first question would then be: Why did he write it that way? In other words, why write a book about such important issues if it's not the way you see things?

I do believe that a novel can convey important truths about God through unorthodox and perhaps surprising means - but a direct, non-allegorical encounter with God as in "The Shack" describes must be handled very carefully.

An example of another unusual Christian novel that I would endorse is "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis, which I'm currently reading for the second time. How Lewis weaves spiritual truths into the story fascinates me.

[11. Derek Wong said the following at 11:18 AM on Jun 19:]

11

I haven't read the book, but I enjoyed the review/critique nonetheless. Thanks for efficiently speaking up for truth.

[12. SarahJane said the following at 11:32 AM on Jun 19:]

12

I really appreciated this review, because I have many friends who are raving over "The Shack." Like Tami (#7) said, the book seems almost too popular. It seems to me that whenever a book gains in popularity like this, there is generally (at the least) a watered-down version of Scripture and theology therein. I would be interested to read it - with a Bible in the other hand - so that I can more effectively dialogue with my friends, but I am cautious to do so. Thanks again for your thoughts, Tom.

[13. Samuel PG said the following at 11:53 AM on Jun 19:]

13

Tom,
Thanks for such a substantial review. As a theology major, I would also like to thank you for using the proper theological terms for the heresies involved. Is it odd that I get excited to read or hear the term patripassionism?

[14. brx said the following at 11:55 AM on Jun 19:]

14

Tom,

Wow! Wow... I doubt Will Young ever advocated that anyone take his book as the Word of God. I think he's only trying to illustrate some of his understandings about God in a non-threatening manner. I agree, it does swing to the left side, but I bet Will is now closer to the right than he has ever been. And I hope some of Will's illustrations to his children protect them from the many love-lacking, jerk 'Christians' who carry their Bibles in the form of a bat.

I suppose I'm a little defensive of Will Young and his attempt to communicate God's love. Likely, it's because I've actually met so many people who've been terribly abused by others with rigid (and twisted) doctrine claiming to follow God or Christ. It's no wonder so many people think Christians are jerks!

I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love. Yes, I know they're supposed to go hand-in-hand, but we are sinful, out-of-balance creatures. I think a lot of 'Christians' will be surprised at the Judgement when they see who's in and who's out.

Grace, peace & growing closer with God.

[15. Samuel PG said the following at 12:01 PM on Jun 19:]

15

Nicole (6),
The fact is that many Christians have never studied theology in much depth, not to mention church history. It is in these two fields of study, informed thoroughly through study of the Scripture, that we learn to differentiate between good theology and subtly heretical theology. The heresies have had as much success as they have because they do a good job of looking like the real thing, with little tweaks and adjustments in matters of extreme importance.
I know that in the west we love our democratic principles and the idea that everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone is equally capable of making a judgment. Someone who has been through medical school is better equipped to diagnose illnesses and someone like Tom with an education in theology is better equipped to identify theological problems than the average Christian.

[16. BDB said the following at 12:08 PM on Jun 19:]

16

Interesting...

The book IS popular. I have an unread copy on my shelf. But unlike SATC, I think it's worthwhile to read something that is popular in church circles. There are some popular non-fiction books in Christian circles where I think there are conflicts with scripture. I think I'll read the book before I say anything else.

[17. Christy said the following at 12:14 PM on Jun 19:]

17

I have to disagree with you, Tom. What I loved about this book is the way that it portrayed God. It grew and stretched me in how I see God. I come from a conservative Christian home and due to that as well as my personality traits, I tend towards legalism and trying to please God. What I need instead of trying to follow all of the rules is to fall in love with God and then the rest will fall into place. Yes, discipline and truth are also important, but in all of life there must be balance. This book speaks to Christians like me. What Young is doing is painting a picture of God that is different than what most people think. Yeah, he may not be COMPLETELY right theologically, but I think it is important as Christians to be able to consider different points of view that don't line up completely with our conservative Christian viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I am passionate about truth, and get made fun of a lot for my "old-fashioned" and "conservative" world views. However, I don't think that Young was trying to make theological statements or saying that he is completely right, he was just writing out of his own experience and it was beautiful.
I wish that we as Christians could learn what is really important and valid to speak out against and what is not.

[18. Boston Matt said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 19:]

18

Hey everyone,

Well I read the book and I did a review for my church on it. I agree that there are some really deep issues and I also had some hard times with the book.

I always have a hard time though when we so quickly state that God is a God of wrath to. There is no doubt that this is the case and in many ways we quickly ignore that fact but I don't think that this book was focused on that side of God. I doubt that Young would deny this about God either.

My critique of the book was the ending was wicked shotty and horrible but I enjoyed it as FICTION. I guess that is where my question comes in for everybody?

In C.S. Lewis' book The Last Battle, he has someone getting into Aslan's country who didn't even believe in Aslan! Does that mean we toss the book out as heresy? Especially given how close Lewis bordered universalism? I would think not! I agree we have to correct what was wrong but I think Young touched on something we all don't understand. God sovereignty vs. horrendous pain. Do any of us understand that? And remember folks...it's fiction!

[19. Dani said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 19:]

19

As someone who owns The Shack (I requested it for Christmas after reading glowing reviews on Amazon), I have to say that I'm torn about the book. I read about halfway and then lost interest, which I think is more a blessing from God (to move me away from heresies and back into scripture) and less about a lack of interesting story. The story itself is fairly interesting.

My first thoughts reading the book were something like, "I would never give this book to a new Christian." Why? Because even as a person who considers myself strongly grounded in doctrine, I kept having to remind myself of scriptural truth and tear my mind away from the pretty images Young designs.

The reason I'm torn about the book is that despite its heresies, there are good moments of truth. I seem to remember one scene where Mack is in a garden with the Holy Spirit; I can't recall what the lesson learned there is, but I remember finding it truthful. (Yes, I realize that that isn't very helpful, but I'm at work and don't have the book handy.)

So, I guess my question then is this: is it okay to use truthful stories and images from a heretical book? I know people frequently use examples from non-Christian movies or books, but what about something like The Shack--a heretical book that poses as true Christianity?

[20. Josh said the following at 12:28 PM on Jun 19:]

20

Honestly I think you're taking the book way too seriously. There are certainly theological missteps, but then again its a work of fiction and doesn't claim to be a theology textbook. I would recommend it as a conversation starter for non-Christians because it covers a vast array of topics and introduces the idea of an intimate, relational God that blows away preconceived notions of the distant, observer-in-the-sky deity. Its not a substitute for Scripture (never claims to be) but read it with discernment and charity and there's a lot of edifying stuff in there.

Also, count me in the crowd that had no problem with God being anthropomorphized as a woman. Contrary to your post, God is sometimes spoken of in scripture in feminine terms. Now, Christ taught us to pray to God the Father, and that's what I'm going to do until I die. But I'm not going to pretend that is intimately linked with gender for God like it is with us.

[21. Julia said the following at 12:32 PM on Jun 19:]

21

Tom,

A million thanks for writing this review and actually making it clear how subtle heresy can be.

The danger of heresy in novels is that everything a person reads does influence them (though they may not admit it). No one is arguing that the novelist is declaring his book to be truth, but if it gives some unknowing person incorrect theology it could be the difference between heaven or hell for that soul. And that is a very big deal.

As for the use of the Bible as a baseball bat: In my experience unwelcome truth often feels like a baseball bat even when delivered by a meek and kind Christian. Tom's review was not unkind, personally attacking or offensive. It was merely a criticism of The Shack on its theological merits - which are lacking.

Sola Scriptura

[22. Jerry said the following at 12:33 PM on Jun 19:]

22

But, Christie, most of us would consider this something important and valid to speak out against... because we see it ruining the theology of our friends - and almost everything valuable in this life starts and ends with our idea of God.

Regardless of authorial intent, the CONTENT of the book is not only troubling but also dangerous because it paints an incredibly inaccurate view of God relative to the one He's shared with us in His word. Though I hear your arguments for books like this shifting our views, what value do they have when those same transformations of our minds can take place by reading the Bible prayerfully and vulnerably instead?

[23. brx said the following at 12:37 PM on Jun 19:]

23

...thought maybe I should add that I can understand a bit of Will's issue with Christians and seminary professors who teach that God has

"completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper..."

I grew up in a very academic church where it seemed God was more a system of beliefs and rules. I had read much of the Bible. However, it wasn't until my college years that I met people alive with a living relationship with God in Christ.

If you have non-Christian or baby-Christian friends who are reading "The Shack" and enjoying it, may I suggest: try to resist putting on your 'Bible-answer-man' cape to correct any false doctrine they _might_ be pondering. Instead, after they finish the book, consider inviting them to hang out and read one of the Gosples together, maybe the book of Mark (short). Don't try to impress them with your knowledge and understanding; just ask and discuss what y'all see going on with Jesus and the people.

God is awesome and heavy and all (holy) but I think sometimes we can make Him out to be too heavy - like we have to carry all His baggage (to borrow Suzanne's analogy). I think sometimes we forget that God intended to carrying all the baggage Himself and not to load us down with it.

Grace, peace & growing closer to God

[24. Nicole said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 19:]

24

Its a good idea to not take ourselves TOO seriously when it comes to books or movies, which I feel boundless in general definely does. A lot of people are just looking for something good to read casually especially during these summer months. And every person has a different idea of what good is. Some people will like it, some wont, read it or don't read it. If you're an adult you can make up your own mind. I sometimes think that there is a huge Christian snobbery problem. Its like the more someone condemns the media choices of others, the more intelligent and holy they become by comparison. Its like they arn't happy until they have made you feel guilty, they are right and you are wrong. ugh!

[25. cn said the following at 12:49 PM on Jun 19:]

25

No one has to work hard to convince me that this book is quite heretical. I was concerned at the first mention of God the Father being portrayed as a woman, who still goes by "Papa." That has confusion written all over it.

[26. Joey said the following at 12:53 PM on Jun 19:]

26

I'm a little mystified by some of the perspectives mentioned here... it seems several are arguing that a work of fiction need not line up 100% with Biblical theology. To which I respond, why not? Why should we excuse theological issues in Christian fiction simply because it's fiction?

Now I know people will say, "because fiction isn't reality!" But fiction is a vehicle for communicating truth - using a made-up world or story to tell us something about our world. While the story may differ from reality, the truth communicated ought to be in line with Scripture.

Once again, if we would say that a non-fiction work on suffering or God's sovereignty ought to be correct on the whole about theology, why are we holding a work of fiction that seeks to address these issues to a lower standard? This is not simply an entertaining story - it has a message.

[27. Julia H said the following at 1:04 PM on Jun 19:]

27

Could someone please explain the concept of solo scriptura to me in a few points? Also, do most evangelicals believe that there is no prophesy anymore? Does God no longer speaks directly to people? Is there scriptural support for such views?

[28. brx said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 19:]

28

Samuel (#15) writes:

"Someone who has been through medical school is better equipped to diagnose illnesses and someone like Tom with an education in theology is better equipped to identify theological problems than the average Christian."

Whoa! Please be careful about assuming the quality of one's education and judgements. Nothing against Tom Neven - I think he's shown himself to be a pretty good Biblical theologian. But Samuel, that's the same kind of reasoning that leads to people accepting poor or hasty medical advice from doctors. It's the same reasoning some church leaders used to keep the Bible out of the hands of lay-people and keep themselves on pedestals. It's also the same reasoning many cult leaders have used to stay in power teaching their twisted doctrine [the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda is a recent example].

People should feel free to ask any honest question - and multiple times. The Lord is not to big for honest questions. So many important ones can be answered simply by reading & prayer, straight through the Bible on one's own.

God speed.

[29. Tami said the following at 1:29 PM on Jun 19:]

29

Julia H -- "Sola Scriptura" means "Scripture alone." It was a big part of the Reformation. Summarized to its basics, it means that we take our understanding of God and what He has to say only from Scripture, rather than the tradition of people or institutions. All things -- including guidance, etc. -- must be filtered through and checked against the truth of God's Word. This is not to deny that God speaks directly to people; however, if the idea contradicts Scripture, it "loses".

I know we love our Wikipedia 'round here ;) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[30. Faith said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 19:]

30

"Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine."
- Wikipedia

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_sola_sproul.html
Article by R. C. sproul

"We defend it and express our deep concern about it because we believe it is the truth. It is a truth we do not want to negotiate. We earnestly desire dialogue with our evangelical brothers and colaborers who differ from us."

[31. BDB said the following at 1:40 PM on Jun 19:]

31

Julia H (#27) wrote:

>>Also, do most evangelicals believe that there is no prophesy anymore? Does God no longer speaks directly to people?<<

Well, many of the people who attend churches in the Charismatic wing of Evangelical churches grew up in a different tradition. There are lots of people I know who switched because they came to a point where they realized God was speaking. Some people point out that much of the growth in church attendance is among the Charismatic denominations. They attribute this growth to allowing the Holy Spirit to change people's lives - and when people's lives are changed, they believe.

I hasten to add that it's a point of contention and often controversial. I know lots of people who adamantly believed that God did not speak directly to people in modern times. Then something happened to them personally, and their theology changed.

[32. BDB said the following at 1:44 PM on Jun 19:]

32

So, does studying a theology textbook violate "sola scriptura?" Why or why not?

[33. Faith said the following at 1:45 PM on Jun 19:]

33

I think the Bible speaks for itself. Truth matters.

Proverbs 14:5 A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

Zechariah 8:16 These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts;

2 Corinthians 4:1-2 Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

[34. Tami said the following at 2:08 PM on Jun 19:]

34

BDB (32) -- To answer your question, no. I can't give a great explanation why, but my waggish answer is to say that Luther's Werke wouldn't exist if people couldn't study theological texts w/o contradicting "sola scriptura". :)

I think most people understand that theology texts are still a person's (educated) interpretation, and that any fault is with the writer and not the original text. Your "grip" is still on Scripture, not on upholding the teachings of any certain theologian.

[35. Bethany M said the following at 2:26 PM on Jun 19:]

35

Dr. Al Mohler spent an entire radio program on this book, and he did an excellent job of breaking down the theology.

Young claims to believe in the Bible. Whether or not he does, I don't know. But the problem with The Shack, The DaVinci Code, and others like them is even though they're 'fiction,' many people will unwittingly take them in as truth.

[36. Bev said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 19:]

36

I was given the book as a gift recently, and had the same reaction to it as you, Tom. An excellent review--you are right on. The author has some good thoughts, but it's a shame he didn't choose another way in which to express them. The book will only confuse people more.

[37. DannieA said the following at 3:24 PM on Jun 19:]

37

To Tom:

I'm an avid book reader (I have not heard of this book until now) and I take books as stories and try to imagine a story in my head. The stories usually end up being fiction or fantastic....if there are good themes then I'm happy, yet I don't take them as stamped spiritual truths. That's what the Bible is for.

Are you saying that anyone that writes a book has to write from a Church scripture perspective? God has always been referred in the male pronoun in the Bible, yet NT gives him feminine traits in parables.....looking for the lost sheep, sweeping for the lost coin etc. So the fact that God appears as a woman and ends up as a man could just be an imaginative license to line up all the qualities that God portrays. Remember we are all made in the image of God so therefore even women are made in God's image....so what does that mean?

I guess what i'm saying is that authors should be left with their creative license to write what their minds have created....we have a choice whether to read it or not....and we should be smart enough to know that a book is a book and not the Bible.

Is that being too naive? I am speaking as a person who reads avidly for information and just for fun, as well as reading Devotionals and the Bible for inspiration and truth.

[38. Jo said the following at 3:55 PM on Jun 19:]

38

brx said "I agree, it does swing to the left side, but I bet Will is now closer to the right than he has ever been."

I read this as meaning heresy/truth more than left/right - I don't know if that's quite what you meant but it's a really important point. If a person is travelling along a path leading towards a greater understanding of the truth, harsh condemnation of the still-shaky points of their faith could do a lot more harm than good.

that's not to say problem areas shouldn't be identified, especially if they're expressed in a book that's being widely read (I hadn't heard of it before this post so I can't comment on it specifically) - but grace, grace, grace and gentle correction, not fire and brimstone on the head of someone who may well be moving in the right direction.

[39. BDB said the following at 5:38 PM on Jun 19:]

39

Tami (#34) wrote:

>>but my waggish answer is to say that Luther's Werke wouldn't exist if people couldn't study theological texts w/o contradicting "sola scriptura". :)<<

So, if I understand correctly, everything should be compared to scripture, and the non-scriptural writing should be discarded where it conflicts with scripture, right?

While I haven't done theology course work, I've read enough to know that theologians conflict. So I would tend to do the same thing with a theology textbook that I would do with a novel: compare it to scripture and discard the conflicts.

I'm thinking of one book in particular that has influenced a friend of mine. My alarm comes from the chapter where the well-known author encourages people to discard their marriage if they're not happy. Scripture obviously conflicts with this. It concerns me whenever a Christian starts talking about the need to "put themselves first." Jesus did talk about "counting the cost" before doing something, which I would take to include avoiding burning out by starting something you can't finish. But Jesus was also quite explicit in the need to be a servant, and not be focused on selfishness.

[40. Julia Seymour said the following at 6:13 PM on Jun 19:]

40

All fiction doesn't have to be held to a high standard - but anything claiming or being represented as Christian fiction should be.

[41. Christy said the following at 6:22 PM on Jun 19:]

41

Jerry,
I do see your points and understand where you are coming from. Truth is so important. However, it is just as dangerous to the gospel to come down so heavy on doctrine and stating the "truth" and miss other things about God or risk turning someone away from God. That is what I see happening so often in conservative Christian circles. I know, because I used to be one of those heavy handed Christians who would call anyone/everyone out on where their doctrine was wrong. But the older I get, the more I realize that I don't have all of the answers, I don't even have most of the answers, nor will I ever. Humility is so key in these situations. Yes, there is absolute truth and there are non-negotiables, but it is so easy to start defending our doctrines and what we are comfortable with or used to rather than what is really truth.

[42. Sandi said the following at 9:28 PM on Jun 19:]

42

Joey (#26) is absolutely right - even fiction, if trying to teach spiritual truth, should line up with scripture. If it doesn't, it will confuse at best and deceive at worst.

And I would ask Josh (#20) to say which scripture verses show God in feminine terms; I've never seen that. Even the verses showing a woman sweeping the house and looking for the lost coin - Jesus was illustrating the concept of not giving up until you find something. He was not anthropomorphizing God as a woman. And the one about the shepherd looking for the lost sheep - shepherds were men.

Brx (#14) said, "I've actually met so many people who've been terribly abused by others with rigid (and twisted) doctrine claiming to follow God or Christ. It's no wonder so many people think Christians are jerks!
I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love."

I think you need to have right love AND right doctrine, and that if you obey right doctrine, you will be practicing right love. Those abusive people you describe were just claiming to follow right doctrine, but they definitely DIDN'T follow it at all. They obviously either had not read the Bible, or they were flat-out disobeying it. And God says in His Word that they will be accountable for that. I don't see how reading a book which paints a VERY inaccurate picture of what is obviously supposed to be God is going to help that. Right Biblical doctrine, if followed, will definitely lead to right love. "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4:8 - in fact, the whole book of I John is an excellent treatise on God's love)

I haven't read the book yet, but if I do, I will definitely be wary. Thanks, Tom, for the heads-up. I will pray that this book will not be used by the enemy of our souls to confuse, but rather, even in its imperfect doctrine, will be used to draw people to a closer relationship with God, and that people will delve deep into the Bible and see what it really says.

[43. farmer Tom said the following at 9:32 PM on Jun 19:]

43

I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love.

First a comment about this thought.

As a farmer, maybe I can illustrate how absurdly insane that comment is,...

We regularly have to give shots to the pigs here on the farm for a disease call PRRS Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome. If they don't get the shot, they get lung dieases and die. So every pig on the farm gets the shot. Now it so happens that we do not change the needle after giving every pig it's shot. And several months ago we had a pig who got an infection from a dirty needle. One little tiny germ got moved from a carrier pig to the next pig, and injected under his skin. One little tiny germ, and it grew and it grew more and more of his type were produced until the time I found him, he had a mass of infection the size of a basketball on the right side of his neck right behind the right ear. One little heresy festers and grows until literally thousands may spend their eternity in hell, because purity of the gospel doesn't matter???

You see if I were to spit in the glass of water you are drinking from, it's only a small percentage of the volume of the glass, so (a little bit of doctrine askew) is just a drop of spit in a glass of water, no big deal right, drink up son, the waters fine, I only spit in it once. The infection only started with one little tiny germ, it's no big deal, right????

Now to the question I really want to talk about,

#3 Annika asked,

What ever happened to "The Lord our God, the Lord is One?"

No wonder my Muslim friends think that Christianity is pretty odd. At least they think that "There is no God but God."

I have seen a lot of this emphasis on the trinity lately, and I find it really confusing. There is one God.

Ted responded,
the Trinity is a mystery. God exists in community, though He is one. It is an odd doctrine. A biblical one, though.

Sorry Ted, but I don't believe it is nearly as mysterious as some people try to make it, several illustrations.

Annika, what did you have for breakfast this morning, ever looked at an egg??

I talk about food a lot, if you ever saw me you would know why. Anyway, for lunch I had fresh strawberries from our garden, on top of home made yellow cake. We had yellow cake because we had a birthday and the lovely Mrs.farmer made an angel food cake for the birthday party.

Now Annika, where did the angel food cake come from? Mrs. farmer separated all of the egg whites from the egg yolks, saved the egg shells to put in the garden, because they are high in calcium. Three parts of the egg, each completely different, the egg yolk, the egg white and the egg shell. Each with a different function and use, yet the egg can not exist with out all three. Ever seen an egg without a shell, ever seen an egg without a yolk, ever seen an egg without the white? I grew up on a farm, I seen all three , yet they were memorable because they were freaks of nature, abnormalities. An egg has three parts the shell the yolk and the white, without all three you throw it away as useless refuse.

Annika, where do you park your car? In a parking space? Or in a garage? I helped a friend build a new garage, it is a worthless garage, for two reasons. First, because its not attached to his house, and since we live in the frozen tundra about half the year, building a garage without attaching it to the house is a crime against humanity. (That's a joke, OK.) The main reason his garage is worthless though is that it's incomplete. He built a two car garage 24 X 36 (864 square feet). But the parking space in a garage is not just square feet. Space is defined as length X with X height. Until my friend added walls and a roof to his slab of concrete 24 X 36, it was absolutely worthless as a garage because he failed to ad a third dimension.

The God of the universe is not One Father plus One Son plus One Spirit = Three Gods. The God of the Bible is One Father X One Son X One Spirit = One God.

In Genesis 1:26 God said,"Let us make man in our image."

Now, if the God of the Bible refers to Himself as us, by what standard can you attempt to limit the scope and majesty of the Creator God by attempting to limit His very nature.

Ever thought about what happened the day that John the Baptist immersed Jesus. Mark and Luke both record the following,

Mark 1:9-11:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Notice who is present here, Jesus, the Son of God, The Spirit of God descending in the form of a dove, and God the Father speaking.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"

John 1:1-3 says that the Word made all things, and that the Word is God, and verse 14 says "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"

The Triune God is one of the Greatest Truths of the Bible. A Creator God, who loved His creation so much, that He provided a way of salvation for sinful mankind by sacrificing Himself for our sins. He was the only perfect sinless sacrifice, and He was the only one capable of paying the penalty for our sins.

If your God is a one dimensional, limited space, kind of self-centered and self-serving God, without the ability or the desire to demonstrate his love for you by sacrificing himself for you, you can have him.

I'll take the Triune God of the Bible, Thank You very much. In Jesus name Amen.

Let me recommend a book for you to read Annika. it's no longer in print, but I say several used copies on Amazon recently.

The God You Should Know by J. Sidlow Baxter.

This book helped me tremendously in my understanding of the Triune God. My dad recommended it to me, he said that it helped him in his understanding of the Triune God.

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 9:36 PM on Jun 19:]

44

BTW, Yes the infected pig story is true.

I could tell you what I did about the basketball sized mass of infection.....

but some of you city people with weak stomachs and thin skin would likely get sick to your stomach,

lets just say it wasn't pleasant, and leave it at that,

If you really want to know, ................ ask Ted to let me post it, but be warned it's not pretty.

[45. Chin Wee said the following at 10:10 PM on Jun 19:]

45

This is for all those who think that just theology and doctrines are all rigid and restrictive.

Let's put it this way, good theology and doctrine are ultimately liberating and WILL ALWAYS result in proper doxology. The rigid and "heavy-handed" doctrines that you are referring to are bad theologies and bad doctrines.

The truth of the Bible liberates us, and shows us the wonder and majesty of the Gospel and God.

[46. Dan Hall said the following at 10:24 PM on Jun 19:]

46

For me, one of the most poignant and "spiritual" moments in reading the book was how Papa bent over backwards to be God in the most nonthreatening manner for Mack to see how much Papa loved both Mack and his daughter. This was done so that Mack would return to a relationship with God after the terrible tragedy. When I read Scripture I see the same thing, especially when I read Psalm 103. The tender love of the Father shown in Scripture moves me to tears often, even in worship. The Shack is about concepts contained within Sacred Scripture, but should not be compared to it. For every theological construct in the book that may be inaccurate, there are concepts that convey the truth about God that "plain folk" can understand. Not everyone gets theology, but they get Jesus and his love expressed through action.
As far as being bent to one side of God's character, keep the story in mind: Mack's daughter was murdered and he was hurting and doubting all he knew about God. God moved in a very deliberate way to get Mack to understand who He is, and of course in this situation expressing His holiness might have pushed Mack further away. There is a place and a time and a season for all things as Ecclesiastes tells us. The Shack gives a glimpse of how this works.

[47. Mason Moore said the following at 10:39 PM on Jun 19:]

47

Annika said: "PS I TOTALLY agree that no one should be anthropomorphizing God, especially not as a woman."

Here's a quote from Exodus 33:23 where God is speaking to Moses: “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”

Just in this one line, I count 3 instances of anthropomorphization: God's hand, God's face and God's backside. Kinda hard to diss anthropomorphization when the Bible itself is so full of it.

[48. Tami said the following at 10:51 PM on Jun 19:]

48

BDB (39) -- yep, that's about what I'm trying to explain. :) Nothing is truly authoritative except the Word of God. This is not to take away from the many, many scholars and theologians who have applied heart, mind, and soul to dedicated and Spirit-led study and analysis of the Word; it's just to say that even they, like we, have faults and limitations to our understanding.

As a personal example, I am really moved by Martin Luther's testimony and his dedication to grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, and so on. And at the same time, even a cursory study of his biography reveals weaknesses and error... thus precluding his work from ever taking precedence over what God says. It's also why I would hesistate to call myself a Luther-ist (if there was such a thing).

As to whatever book your friend read... my goodness. That's a perfect example of what I'm driving at. I love books, but not enough to sacrifice what God says in order to follow what they say to the letter. As I know you know (just by all you've said on this blog), discernment is key.

And yeah, I've read some real garbage in "Christian" books, especially pertaining to marriage. I wonder why that is?

[49. Samuel PG said the following at 1:06 AM on Jun 20:]

49

brx (28),
Thanks for replying to my comment. Just so you know, I did make a quick check of Tom's theological credentials (Boundless Line gives a brief background of each of its contributors).
Aside from that, I have to disagree with you. In response to my saying that a person with a theological education is better equipped to identify theological problems, you wrote,
"that's the same kind of reasoning that leads to people accepting poor or hasty medical advice from doctors. It's the same reasoning some church leaders used to keep the Bible out of the hands of lay-people and keep themselves on pedestals. It's also the same reasoning many cult leaders have used to stay in power teaching their twisted doctrine [the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda is a recent example]."
The fact that people think doctors with years of medical schooling are better prepared to diagnose their illnesses than themselves leads them to accept poor medical advice from them? I suppose that does happen, but in the minority of cases. Generally speaking, I believe any person would be better off trusting a person educated in medicine rather than themselves when it came to their thoughts on a medical diagnosis.
As far as cult leaders go, a brief study of such leaders will reveal that most of them have woefully inadequate theological education, so it is doubtful that they claim that they must be followed due to their academic credentials. They generally claim that they are a prophet, that only they know the proper way to interpret Scripture, or that God speaks directly to them. You might say that a person educated in theology also claims that only they know how to interpret Scripture, but that would not be accurate. A well-trained theologian has learned to submit their own personal interpretation of Scripture to those interpretations that have been handed down by the many great Christian intellects who have read the Bible before them. A theologian, above all people, should know better than to claim that orthodoxy resides in their own, as opposed to the Church's, views.
The fact of the matter is that if many cult leaders had had a better theological education (and perhaps a more obedient heart), there would be fewer cults.
Finally, it is practically a truism that a person with a theological education will be better at identifying theological problems than a person without it. Before I began studying theology, I never realized that believing that God the Father also suffered on the cross was a heresy (patripassionism). I never realized that saying Jesus had the body and soul of a man but the mind of God was a heresy (Apollinarianism). I have a feeling that I would have recognized that the teaching that God the Son was actually God the Father's first and most perfect creation, through whom He created everything else, was a heresy but I would have had a hard time identifying it, let alone naming it (Arianism).
I believe that God is big enough for any and every question, but we cannot demand that He answer our questions through our own prayer time and personal study of the Bible. Of course we should do those things, but if we are asking Him whether or not a teaching is heretical and dangerous to the Church and the Christian mind, perhaps we should look for Him to answer us in the creeds, confessions, and treatises of the great theologians and leaders whom He has already given the Church.

[50. Leah said the following at 1:14 AM on Jun 20:]

50

farmer Tom, why do you always have to be insulting of people when they've done nothing wrong? Annika was just confused and didn't understand something and you were rude; and then you went and said city people had "weak stomachs" and "thin skin"... it's simply uncalled for and definitely not loving.

[51. Leah said the following at 1:16 AM on Jun 20:]

51

Tami said "the whole phenomenon strikes me as Da Vinci Code-esque."

YES! That's exactly what came to my mind when I read about this.

[52. Josh said the following at 1:35 AM on Jun 20:]

52

RE #42: Sandi,

An example would be Psalm 90:2, where God is said to have "brought forth" the earth and the world. The Hebrew word used here is one that refers to a woman giving birth. Another example would be Matthew 23:37, where God gathers up his children like a hen gathers her chicks.

Now the masculine anthropomorphisms of God in scripture are definitely more numerous, but the point is that by using both we can see that God is neither man nor woman (he is in fact Spirit). This is why I had no problem with God the Father being portrayed as a black woman, since portraying him as a man would have been equally "wrong". The image is culturally jarring and effectively demonstrates that God exists outside of our preconceived notions.

[53. farmer Tom said the following at 4:26 AM on Jun 20:]

53

Yes there are lots of spelling mistakes in my long post, I really did correct them, but for some unknown reason, the computer failed to save the changes.

The computer issues continue.

[54. Robin Sampson said the following at 5:39 AM on Jun 20:]

54

This is my first visit here. I disagree. The Shack encompasses forgiveness, faith, hope, trust, love, reliance on God, and hope is worth reading.

I just wrote a review on my blog.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:53 AM on Jun 20:]

55

BDB asks:

So, does studying a theology textbook violate "sola scriptura?" Why or why not?

Having read my share of theological texts, even by those theologians I don't particularly admire, I'd say the answer is no.

The premise of Sola Scriptura is that only the Scriptures are the authority in matters of faith and practice.

It's not that extrabiblical texts have no value; on the other hand, no matter how good those theologians may be, they just don't carry the authority of Scripture.

We tend to get into trouble when we start taking commentaries about Scripture--and that's what even the best theology texts are--and elevating them to the same level as Scripture itself.

Jesus had to confront that culture on an almost daily basis.

[56. ScottW said the following at 8:23 AM on Jun 20:]

56

Chin Wee #45

Yes! Wonderful post! I couldn't agree more.

That is the question I love the most: Why can't we have good doctrine AND good love? Why can't it be BOTH/AND, not EITHER/OR? If we really grasped what God has done for us in the death of Christ (good doctrine) then our love should no limits (good love, or orthopraxy for you theologians).

[57. Woz said the following at 8:28 AM on Jun 20:]

57

As it was touched on earlier, the problem isn't so much that this book is fiction, like say Chronicles of Narnia, where the person of Jesus if represented in an allegorical way by Aslan. The Shack, portrays God as God, not a lion. It is a fictional book about reality. The book gives actual words to this fictional representation of God, which is where the problems lay.

The book is not about a fictional, alternate universe of mythical creatures (i.e. Narnia) where there is a little but more freedom in the story telling because it is an allegory; but The Shack is a fictional story about this real universe, where the God of our real Bible comes and talks to the main character about real suffering and issues.

So the problem isn't so much that this is fiction, but that it's fiction trying to come up with a hypothetical real situation, and then putting words and concepts into the mouth of God, that are sometimes contrary to what our real scriptures reveal to us about the actual character and person of God.

People, christians and non-christians, will read this, and assume that (like Pilgrims Progress) the author is trying to communicate real truths from Scripture in a literary way. While this may or may not be the intention of the author, the inherent danger is still there. As someone said, literature has its purpose in trying to explain truth in a fresh way, so it is our duty as Christians, like the Bereans, to search the scriptures and compare this "truth" to what the bible says.

[58. Sam said the following at 8:29 AM on Jun 20:]

58

Whenever I read something like this, i cant help being reminded of the following quote:

"Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself." (Irenaeus of Lyons—2nd Century A.D.)

The whole problem with the concept of "eating the meat and spitting out the bones" is that too many immature and unwary christians will spiritually "choke" on the bones.

Lets speak plainly. The Shack is pure heresy and should be rejected. Yes, its fiction but so is Brian McLaren's New Kind of Christian. Fiction is being used merely as a device for the author to communicate his viewpoint. When an author writes a fiction work that includes theology, the mere fact that he uses fiction as a device does not relieve him of the responsibility as a Christian to defend the faith nor does it remove the accountablity of the consquences of false teaching.

I dont understand how people can not grasp the extent of God's love from the pages of the Bible where we learn how sinful we are as humans were deserving death for our sinfulness BUT yet in God's love, He sent Jesus to die in our place. No of us deserve heaven BUT yet, God's love and grace were shown and extended to us through the cross. It shouldnt take you reading the heretical The Shack to fully grasp God's love. Spend more time in your Bible and really reflect upon God's love as revealed to us in the Scriptures.

[59. farmer Tom said the following at 12:04 PM on Jun 20:]

59

#50. Leah said,

farmer Tom, why do you always have to be insulting of people when they've done nothing wrong? Annika was just confused and didn't understand something and you were rude; and then you went and said city people had "weak stomachs" and "thin skin"... it's simply uncalled for and definitely not loving.

Leah, I'm going to say this as lovingly as possible, you need a humor gland installed immediately.

I was very polite to Annika, nothing I said to her can be construed in any way as rude, mean, unkind or sarcastic.

On the other hand, fools who would negate The Truth of Scripture for the nebulous "love", are deserving of the scorn and ridicule they draw to themselves.

Ever heard of the "hick farmer", well we hick farmers have serious disdain for people who live in the city and believe that milk comes from the grocery store, not cows. That vegetables magically appear in the produce aisle, and that just cause you live in the country, your IQ is 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean.

So I make fun of city folks, can't you laugh at yourself, or does the truth hurt?

[60. Sarah P. said the following at 1:02 PM on Jun 20:]

60

Tom N., thank you so much for reviewing this book! Y'all who say The Shack is still worth reading, sure. I personally think it stinks in both truth and aesthetics, but that's my opinion. Tom is just giving the heads-up to be careful in the process of reading.

Farmer Tom (#43): The Trinity is indeed a total mystery, and I'll tell you why - so you have a yolk, a white, and a shell... but can you say they are each the whole egg in essence at the same time? God is three different Persons, but each one is also completely, entirely God. Whoa.

Personally, I think books like The Shack can be insidious. One of my Christian co-workers read it in her Bible study and said it was very interesting, so I asked to borrow it. I started to bog down from the writing halfway through, but that was enough for me to encounter some items that made me, shall we say, widen my eyes. And then when I asked my co-worker what she had thought, she said, "Oh. I knew something was a little off, but I just thought it was a good story."

I ran into a load of pain this last year, and it just wasn't enough for me to say, "God loves me." I had to know the whole shebang - God doesn't exist for my sake. He owns me and has a right to do whatever He wants with me because of His great justice and my terrible sin, and nonetheless He loves me, and He intends this for the deepest good of all, to shape me to be like Jesus.

[61. brx said the following at 5:56 PM on Jun 20:]

61

Samuel (#49),

I think we probably agree. My concern was more that you didn't specify "in general" they're better equipped. You conceded that error "does happen, but in the minority of cases." Let's keep in mind when dealing with percentatges and volume, a minority can still represent many thousands. I've seen some pastors intimidate people to prevent questions. I've seen some seminary professors teach what I think is rubbish. I've known a learned doctor to give a confident, but erroneous answer to a direct question from a patient. And I know engineers from good schools but whose work I would still inspect before trusting my safety to it. I think they all do well in their areas of expertise, but I also remember they're only people and still falible.

"I judge a man by what I see him do and not by what others tell me he does." - a quote I like from one C.S. Forrester's captain characters.

Of most importance I think, is that we should all strive to be like the Bereans and maintain personal discernment.

Grace & peace

[62. brx said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 20:]

62

Jo (#38); yep, that's what I meant. I agree with you about harsh condemnation. For people who have been traumatically abused by a wrong image of God or a father, it often takes a long time and a lot of people actually showing the love of God and Jesus to help undo those wrong images.

It seems a common problem is that we Christians get so caught up in our _own_ pride and insecurity that we often spend more time correcting with words instead of loving with action. Yes, there's some value in making provocative statements and posts to stimulate fruitful discussion and healthy debate and banter -- and the Boundless Blog is often one of those places. Still, I think we sometimes speak/write in a way that does not make people want to listen. This is a habit I'm still working to change. I'm not talking about the difficulty with hearing truth, but rather the manner in which we attempt to deliver.

One problem is beginning with an insult. For example "I can illustrate how absurdly insane that comment is..." Statements like that tend to make the listener shut off or shift into a defensive mode. Another common issue is 'shoulding' on a person after not first listening and asking questions to understand them. I get caught doing this often. An example of 'shoulding' that probably won't be taken well: "I don't understand how people can not grasp the extent of God's love from the pages of the Bible... ...It shouldn't take you reading the heretical The Shack to fully grasp God's love. Spend more time in your Bible and really reflect upon God's love as revealed to us in the Scriptures." The advice giver doesn't know these people nor understand them and that's often received as a lack of compassion.
[thanks for being good sports, Tom and Sam. like I said, I'm working on these issues myself. -and I thank saintly sisters for helping bring it to my attention.]

Farmer Tom (#43); re, the germ and pig illustration... I think I would have stuck with the yeast & bread. In my statement, I was hinting at 1 Cor 13.

Grace & peace

[63. Stephen Cathers said the following at 8:00 PM on Jun 20:]

63

While it appears there are heretical elements in the book (especially the idea that all 3 persons of the Trinity were incarnated), I'm not sure that the idea that Jesus relied upon the Father instead of his own divine nature is one of them. It seems to me that the author might merely be saying that, for example, when Jesus did miracles, he voluntarily did not rely on his own power (which he had) but rather trusted the Father and worked them by the power of the Spirit. This would seem to line up with the idea that "God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power." Not sure if the idea that he always did that is correct or not, but it doesn't seem heretical, nor does it require an essential inequality between Father and Son.

As for the idea that this is just fiction, so it shouldn't be criticized for theological error, that's a cop out. It reminds me of Ellen Degeneres talking about people who say really nasty things to you and then add "just kidding." In the same way, it hardly seems right to make all kinds of theological criticisms (or nasty generalizations about people) and then turn around and say "just fiction." If you don't agree, just imagine Papa teaching, instead of patripassionism, the idea that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. I've a feeling the people who are now defending it as "just fiction" wouldn't be so quick to rush to its defense.

[64. Debbie said the following at 9:02 AM on Jun 21:]

64

I haven't read The Shack, and like another reviewer, typically avoid Christian fiction. To be guided in truth, one really must take great care in choosing the source of ideas one puts into the mind. Paul writes passionately about the essential task of renewing the mind. The only thing that truly renews the mind is holy scripture and the attending Holy Spirit, our teacher. We are told to "guard the mind" as well. The mind is the battleground. So, why put into the mind anything that misrepresents truth, when it is truth that faithfully renews the mind?

For this reason, I am wearied by the appetite of so many for questionable books by people who have a flawed or incomplete view of God and truth. It's likely true that some may read a story like The Shack and gain insights that spark a pursuit of God. But, if truth is skewed, and they visit a church and hear authentic truth, what reaction is likely? Confusion. There are so many books in the market that are misleading people. So much confusion. Believers do God a disservice by contributing to it.

Books by or about the lives of Christians like Corrie Ten Boom, Brother Andrew and Jim Elliot inspire and tell of the power, love and sovereignty of God. The question of appetite is key. Why read The Shack, when one can read the Bible and hear directly from God? Why read it or others like it, when one can read a plethora of historical favorites? Postmodernism tempts us to reject the past or the traditional and embrace the "new" and untraditional. Examine your appetite. What are you hungry and thirsty for? God himself, or an image of God that suits the times? Is your appetite pure or self-serving?

If your appetite is for truth and God himself, it will lead you to the Bible, and commentary on biblical doctrine. I'd rather read Donald Barnhouse, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Vernon McGee and others who are able to faithfully expound on God's truth and His nature, than any novel. The Bible and these feed my soul.

We're all different. Some of us love fiction; just pick your fiction carefully. Picking well requires knowledge of truth and discernment that comes with it, which comes from reading and studying the Bible. How many posting comments here study the Bible? It is the surest path to intimacy with God, since it is His own revelation of Himself. I pray for hunger for the true God and the true Word for God's children. God has harsh words for those who seek another God than him, or who give lip service to Him while they seek a "form of godliness" rather than true godliness. The junk books about God are a distraction from seeking the real thing. The time is short. Use it well.

[65. Steve Laube said the following at 11:20 AM on Jun 21:]

65

Great post Tom! Always good to read your insights.

As for THE SHACK's popularity outside of "Internet-Land" Tami #7? For the last two weeks the book has been #1 on the New York Times bestseller list... Ever since it was announced that FaithWords (a division of Hachette, the fifth largest publisher in the world) had picked up the rights to the book, the NY Times has begun to acknowledge the sales reports. Previously they did not report the sales because it was perceived as being self-published, which wasn't entirely accurate because William Young did not publish the book, his friends did and formed Windblown Media.

In July FaithWords will print 500,000 copies and flood the market with the book.

[66. Tami said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 21:]

66

Steve (67) -- What's going on in the publishing world is a top-of-mind topic for me. I'm aware that The Shack is a bestseller and of its distribution story. And yet, the only discussion I've heard has been in the media (mostly via the Internet). My point was that I do not *personally* know anyone that is reading it or discussing it; therefore, I have not had or heard any conversations about the book aside from online. My friends and colleagues that pay attention to the NYT lists do not care about Christian fiction, and therefore would not discuss it. On the other hand, my Christian friends are not the types to be attracted to a book like The Shack in any event. Ergo, no discussions in "real life".

[67. Jo said the following at 2:46 PM on Jun 21:]

67

brx:
I agreed. We're so quick to get defensive when we think someone's theology is slightly askew, we forget there's a person behind that theology. 'Heresy' is such a powerful word. When I was a kid I developed this idea that if a non-Christian died who would have later accepted Jesus if they'd lived, God would let them into heaven. As my understanding grew, I learned this wasn't Biblical. I would have appreciated a gentle correction earlier on, but to be condemned as a heretic probably wouldn't have helped me progress along the path God had for me.

And I understand where you were going with the 'better to have right love than right doctrine' comment. Each will naturally feed into the other, but I think ideally they will develop in conjunction. Too much of either without the other will cause problems.

Debbie:
"Why read The Shack, when one can read the Bible and hear directly from God?"

Again, I haven't read The Shack, but as a general comment, why is it an either/or question? Nothing should replace the Bible. But we are creative people, and we have created and continue to create works of fiction and non-fiction, art, music, dance and drama that present Biblical truth in thousands of different ways. All of these are interpretations and personal responses and none are infallible, but many are useful, instructional, inspiring and enlightening to us in our walks with God.

Also remember that there are scores of people out there who will not touch a Bible, perhaps because of bad experiences of Christianity, or thinking it's irrelevant / way above their understanding, etc. Note, I am not saying these views are accurate, but that they are real perceptions that people have. Therefore to put nuggets of truth into less threatening 'accessible' formats is right and Godly, as signposts to the Bible.

After all, Jesus Himself taught in parables. An individual parable did not give a 'complete' picture of God, but just a small piece of the puzzle. If the story of the lost sheep had been published, no doubt the Pharisees would have been up in arms about how it didn't portray God's wrath but only his compassion. (Not calling you a Pharisee Tom, sorry!!)

Anyway this is getting long but a final point, no one has yet responded to Boston Matt's point in #18 - in 'The Last Battle', a character is saved who never acknowledged Aslan as King. Since it's an allegory of God's judgment, is C.S Lewis a heretic? Why or why not?

[68. Kyle said the following at 2:32 PM on Jun 22:]

68

In response to Jo's (#67) mention of Boston Matt's (#18) question of whether or not C.S. Lewis is a heretic, the answer is no, because C.S. Lewis did not write The Chronicles of Narnia as allegory. In his book "Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories," Lewis asserts that the stories began with images in his mind, not thoughts of wrapping Christianity in a package more palatable for children and the young at heart. Thus, his work in this series neither attempts to explain Christianity nor subvert the sovereignty of God.

I am interested in how Christians make the determination of what creative works are worthy of consumption, not just in works of fiction, but music, visual arts, poetry, and so on. I'd venture to say that many of us take in works which would be anathema to others, though they are not patently wrong things to consume. Paul wrote that all things are lawful but not expedient. I just wonder, are we basing our choices of media consumption upon what is expedient towards our spiritual growth and that of others, or is it merely a matter of personal choice and preference. I believe the thought (or lack thereof) put into our simple choices gives an indication of how we will handle more consequential decisions in our spiritual lives. These discussions seem to bring out many questions and few answers. Nonetheless, I am glad that forums like this exist which allow us to sharpen one another's perspectives through critical reflection.

[69. Phoebe said the following at 11:02 PM on Jun 22:]

69

"There are certainly theological missteps, but then again its a work of fiction and doesn't claim to be a theology textbook."

This is a thought that I think is dangerous. What about "It was just a little necking, but it wasn't sex."? We tend to think as we read. It is precisely those who are least on their guard, thinking "It's just fiction", who are probably most at risk.

As for the beauty of the human, sensitive portrayals of God, I have one question. Why was it necessary to so distort the scriptural depiction of God's being in order to make those points? Doesn't it say that those who love the stranger, prisoner, beggar, are acting with love to Jesus? Might we not also say they are acting LIKE Jesus? (Matt 25, Eph 5:1 -- Be imitators of God)

On this earth, the Lord gives us pictures of people who act with the love and wisdom of the Lord. This is how he chooses to speak to the people of the world: through his children. We also see the deeds of Jesus. His love and humanity are ALL SUFFICIENT. Are other fictional depictions of God necessary? They are not. The Incarnation of Christ is enough. The Presence of God through his children are part of that 'enough'. We can reflect the love, grace, and humanity of Jesus, in ways that are unique to ourselves. But a cross-bred, genetically modified image of God and humanity is not necessary.

That said, I do recognize the need for redemptive fiction that deals with the hardest of subjects. For those who would love to read fiction that shows Christ's redemptive love, even in the most difficult circumstances, I would recommend the beautiful stories of Penelope Wilcock in "The Hawk and the Dove.":

This book is beautiful in every respect. The stories are truly new -- by that I mean that there is absolutely nothing that is cliched or commonplace. The writing is crystalline and beautiful but also simple. But these are lesser things compared to the wonderful themes in this story. We come to understand that forgiveness, and reconciliation are excruciating and gut-wrenching, but among the most God-like deeds possible to mankind. We see humility in men who physically kneel in apology to those they have hurt. We see faith portrayed also as very difficult, but that God is ultimately always, always faithful.(I do not say that lightly: I don't know how God may someday test MY faith.) We see love that sacrifices for the good of others. I treasure this book up with "The Wise Woman" by George MacDonald and "Perelandra" by C.S. Lewis for the lessons it taught me and the beauty it showed me.

(from a review I wrote. The book is only $10 on Amazon. Buy it!)

[70. Nat said the following at 11:38 PM on Jun 22:]

70

I've noticed that many commentators have noted that the shack is fiction. Isn't fiction- or myth- a vehicle to express truths that are dry and or difficult to discuss directly? I seem to recall C.S. Lewis writing a great deal about it. Personally, I've found that I tend to absorb concepts and teachings far more readily through a narrative than I do through a treatise. And, to be honest, that has lead me into error at times- scripture has rescued me. If the fiction in question is impacting people, which the Shack is doing, and if it is teaching them false doctrine, which the Shack does, and if it denigrates the standard by which we judge right belief (the Bible), which the Shack also does; then we're in trouble, aren't we?
One more point, while I'm at it, why do we consider doctrine to be of such minor importance if Jesus and the Apostles- and the prophets and Moses- spent so much time teaching it?

[71. Sj DeWeese said the following at 7:03 AM on Jun 23:]

71

I loved the book and still do. It gained popularity because it was NORMAL people (not theologians) who read it and loved it too... and in turn did everything in their power to get the book into the hands of their loved ones (like I did). The week I bought 25 copies of it from Amazon.com for my peers was also the same week it went to #5 on the Amazon best seller list... so it's obvious others were doing the same thing. It's reminiscent of Blue Like Jazz in the nonthreatening arena and I would/ and have recommended it to all my college friends who are ready to walk away from God and faith.

[72. BD said the following at 10:52 AM on Jun 23:]

72

Not a single scripture reference in this article. Hmmm. That sounds dangerous to me. At least no one doubts that THE SHACK is a work of fiction.

THE SHACK has not even reached the status of "popular" yet. It has to reach critical mass to do that. The book has been so helpful that readers share it, recommend it and pass it around.

The biggest threat THE SHACK poses is to the religious of our day... in much the same way Jesus was a threat to the religious of His day.

[73. Tami said the following at 11:59 AM on Jun 23:]

73

BD (72) -- there are hyperlinks to Scripture references in the article... and yes, I would count something that's at the top of the NYT bestseller list as "popular".

I'm not trying to change your opinion; just pointing those two things out.

[74. Chris Pack said the following at 10:56 AM on Jun 24:]

74

All, I would encourage you to think for yourselves rather than letting this reviewer do the thinking for you. One of the major criticisms here - that God the Father appears to Mack as a black lady - fails to mention why Father chooses to do so, Mack's own abusive father. It also fails to mention that when Mack finally sees God the Father properly - is open to a relationship with a father - that God appears to him as such. The reviewer has God in a nice neat box here assuming that he would not do such a thing to reach out to us for relationship, but the God of Scripture that I see does everything, gives everything, to reach out to us for relationship. Also, this reviewer states, "Mack already understands that 'Papa' is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor," and this is completely incorrect. He understands that "Papa" is God based on the fact that his wife always refers to Father as "Papa" - it has nothing to do with his earthly father, which makes me question this reviewer's understanding of anything in the book as this is something referred to repeatedly throughout the work. The subject of God's judgement is not ignored, as this writer implies. Instead, it is dealt with in an entire chapter and explained in a way that I never dreamed, and especially deals with the subject of us making ourselves judges, rather than God being the judge. Perhaps this reviewer, who implies that Young's past failures skew his theology in this work, should take some of the book's thoughts in this area to heart. I believe this book does God's character no harm and to let someone tell you it does without investigating it for yourself is your choice, but a poor one if this is the review that you allow to do that. No work, not even Scripture itself can FULLY explain the glory of our God, so why put that on this book? Even Scripture limits itself by saying that all of the works of Christ could not be contained in books. It's a limited picture, albeit an infallible and inerrant one. It points us to Christ from beginning to end, not to a principle about Christ, and Young is attempting to do the same in this work. I thank him for sharing with us what the Lord has done in his life through much pain.

[75. tim said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 24:]

75

Okay here is an idea. How about we all buy 3-5 copies of the book and distribute them to some of our non-Christian friends (pausing for audible gasps...). Encourage them to read it and then we discuss it together with them. Discussing it in a way that is Christlike. I get weary when I read reviews that want to tear down the content and prove why "I am right" instead of embracing a (I believe) God-given opportunity to open a dialogue with someone. If i had an opportunity to talk about this book with a non-Christian, i would be so excited to be able to use it as a way to speak some of the same language. I feel so churchy sometimes and I just want to be able to "love as Christ did" and I feel like sometimes I can't get past all the catch phrases I was raised in the church to use. Oh Lord, use me in spite of myself, and if "The Shack" gives me a chance, help me to stay out of your way. Amen!!!

[76. Tom Neven said the following at 4:53 PM on Jun 24:]

76

Chris Pack (#74)

I never said the book ignores God's judgment. I said it gives a one-side picture of God, and a flawed one at that.

I also said that I would not go into great detail on the book's flaws, but as long as you've raised the subject, here's what "Papa" has to say about sin:

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”

That's only partially true, and the parts it leaves out are fatal to anyone who draws their understanding of Christianity from this book.

Yes, sin can be its own punishment, but that does not mean God does not also judge and punish sin. That is a major theme of Jesus' ministry (he warns of hell more than he promises heaven), and to ignore a major teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. To say that God doesn't want to judge sin is just plain wrong, and anyone putting their faith in the "God" of this book might be in for a big surprise.

I have no problem with someone's trying to artfully present the truths of Christianity in story form, but this book violates all the rules of good art. A primary rule of good storytelling is show, don't tell. Young does the exact opposite: it's all telling, no showing. I had to force myself to finish it.

Now consider what Tolkien did. If you want to illustrate sin's power to destroy, I'll go with Tolkien's Golum any day over the insipid, whiny, self-absorbed storytelling in this book.

[77. Tom Neven said the following at 4:56 PM on Jun 24:]

77

Tim (#75)

Would you teach someone chemistry by having him read a book full of erroneous information just so that you could develop a "dialogue" and then have to unteach all the wrong material?

I've never understood this willingness to tolerate error merely for the sake of drawing people to the faith. Is the truth so weak that it needs a lie to get people's interest?

[78. Samuel PG said the following at 6:25 PM on Jun 24:]

78

Tim,
I do not mean this in an antagonistic way, but hope that you can explain this to me. I also think that discussing a spiritual book is a good opportunity to reach out to nonChristian friends, but why would we buy nonChristians a books that teaches bad theology? If someone has already read it, I understand discussing it, but if we are going to buy someone a book to discuss why wouldn't we buy them one that accurately reflects Christian belief?

[79. Danielle said the following at 8:32 PM on Jun 24:]

79

I somehow missed the hype about this book's release, but it caught my eye in a Christian bookstore recently.

Thanks to this insightful and articulate review, I now know what it's all about and will probably be giving this book a miss. I appreciate your thoughts, well-put and ultimately bringing everything back to the truth. Thanks!

[80. Chris Pack said the following at 11:01 AM on Jun 25:]

80

Tim,

I realize that my post was harsh with you and for that I'm sorry. It is my own fallen-ness that causes me to want to defend so often.

I will not fall on my sword here. I am no theologian and have not claimed to be. I did not examine each statement against historical heresies. I did not take any one statement and assume that Young was building an entire theology of God on that statement, any more than I would do so with one statement in Scripture. What I did do is hear the heart of God in this book, woven as a thread through the entire work. I saw a God of relationship and redemption, rather than the God so often pushed today - one that cares so much about the correctness of our theologies. Hmmm - the more I know Him the more He blows my theologies away. I saw a God outside of the box that I so often put Him in. Yet, this book does not contain Him. It is not Him. No book can ever fully explain Him - only Jesus Christ has done so.

So, I will leave it be with this last thing...what the Lord Himself has said about the book...

http://www.windrumors.com/44/june-2008-letter-from-pastor-lawrence-rae/

Of course, whether or not you'll receive it depends on what you believe about our Lord I suppose. May He blow away all of our boxes.

Blessings,
Chris

[81. Chris Pack said the following at 11:10 AM on Jun 25:]

81

By the way, you did, for all practical purposes, say that the book ignores God's judgement, unless you meant something else by this statement...

"He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture, but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness and, ultimately, the final Judge."

[82. tim said the following at 12:05 PM on Jun 25:]

82

Tom (77) and Samuel (78)
A little dialogue...i like it. Let me ask you this. Do you not believe that God is big enough to meet someone where they are in their time of deepest need. Do I believe God is "a large, Black woman"? No! Do I believe God may make Godself appear to someone in a manner that sets them at perfect peace with who God is in order to help that person experience God's unbounded and amazing grace and peace...Absolutely, unequivocally YES!!!
I understand your need to make sure the theology is right. The fallacy in so many of these reviews is that everyone believes Young is writing a theological treatise. It is a work of fiction. A work of fiction! And if it can draw some people into a deeper discussion of who God is and how God wants to be in communion with us, then thank you William Young for being used by God to touch people.

And when it gets down to it, isn't the only truly important theological question we all will have to answer this one from John 21..."(name), do you love me?"

Thanks for your conversation gentlemen, I hope it can continue. And Samuel (78), i found nothing antagonistic in your question at all.
Grace and Peace.

[83. Jackie said the following at 4:37 PM on Jun 25:]

83

I'm reminded that the Pharisees and Sadducees were the most theologically correct groups of their time--and both missed their Messiah when he stood before them in the flesh. It was the prostitutes, tax collectors, fishermen, and revolutionaries who found the Messiah whom the theologians had missed, because these folks saw God offering them a relationship with himself, not a course in theology. I think that is the message of The Shack: God offers us an intimate, personal, loving relationship with himself. I, too, initially had a problem with the book's portrayal of God as a woman; but I realized that the author (I think) wants us to take God out of the anthropomorphic box we've put him in and to stretch our imaginations a bit in an effort to better understand this God who is so far beyond our understanding. Remember, Gen. 1:27 tells us, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Apparently a single gender is too limited to encompass our God's image. If you've not yet read The Shack, don't read it expecting it to match your theology; don't read it expecting it to be a course in theology; and don't read it expecting it to live up Eugene Peterson's glowing review comparing it to Pilgrim's Progress. It's a good book, but it's not that good. Instead, read it to challenge your theology. And above all, read it to remind yourself (or tell yourself for the first time) that God doesn't just have a set of rules he wants you to live by; he loves you, and he wants to have an intimate relationship with you. After that relationship is established and nurtured, and only then, the rules and theology will take care of themselves.

[84. Samuel PG said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 26:]

84

Jackie (83),
Thank you for your comments and the reminder that good theology does not a relationship make. With that said, however, I must fundamentally disagree with the bulk of your post. True, the Pharisees and the Sadducees had the best theology at the time and for the most part missed out on the Messiah. Does that really apply to contemporary Christian theologians, though? I believe it does not. A Christian theologian by definition has not missed out on the Messiah, or they would not be a Christian. Part of the problem with this comparison is that the Pharisees' problem was not a poor understanding of theology as it had been revealed up their point in history, but the refusal to accept the ultimate revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus came to live among them, and Jesus was and is perfect theology. We cannot compare Christian theologians to the Pharisees in that way, because there is no greater revelation of God than Jesus. We can expect no better theology to come than God's own Son. The right thing to learn by looking at the Pharisees is not that we always need to be open to new thoughts on God, but that we are to be focused on Christ.
I expect that someone will ask me if this means that I believe God no longer speaks to His people at all? I firmly believe that God still does (for instance, I remember the day where I simply knew that He had called me into vocational ministry), but this communication no longer reveals new doctrine or theology. If "God" speaks to me and tells me that all three persons of the Trinity were made incarnate together and all suffered on the cross, then I know that this is not the same God who inspired the Bible, as He cannot contradict Himself.
It sounds to me like there might also be a misunderstanding in that you think theology is the same thing as living by rules:
"And above all, read it to remind yourself (or tell yourself for the first time) that God doesn't just have a set of rules he wants you to live by; he loves you, and he wants to have an intimate relationship with you. After that relationship is established and nurtured, and only then, the rules and theology will take care of themselves."
Theology and rules God wants you to live by are not at all the same thing. Theology is the study of God, the quest for true and accurate knowledge about Who God has revealed Himself to be. You might not recognize it, but your firm belief that a relationship with God is what matters most, and not rules that we live by, is based in the theological position popularized by Martin Luther, that we are justified by grace and not by works. I believe that to be good theology, and it helps to highlight a point: if someone instead believed that they had to earn God's blessing through good works, they would cut themself off from a relationship with God. This would be a case of bad theology preventing the relationship that you rightly value. You see, theology is of immense importance.
Finally, you are undoubtedly correct that arrogance and pride can be fostered through theological study and that this can cause someone to miss out from meeting the Messiah. That is a definite danger and must be dealt with, but that is the fault of all humans' sinful tendency toward pride, and not just theologians.
I hope to hear your thoughts in response.

[85. Chris Pack said the following at 2:41 PM on Jun 26:]

85

Samuel (#84),

I feel that you make some valid points, however, it seems unwise to me to completely disagree with Jackie's thoughts here. Why? Well...let me ask you a question. Is a Christian theologian, simply by the fact that he is a Christian, incapable of walking in religious flesh, much the same as a Pharisee? As Paul made clear in more than one letter, there is flesh and there is Spirit. We may live by the Spirit, but it doesn't mean that we are also walking by the Spirit. Weren't the Corinthians living like "mere men" rather than "spiritual men" at times? A Christian theologian may have all of the right answers about God, but does that mean that we will see the fruit of love in his life? In fact, we might see quite the opposite. In short, being saved by Christ does not mean that it's impossible for me to miss Him, to choose a way other than His, in a moment. Again, I believe you make some valid points and bring some good food for thought. Hopefully this post encourages and stimulates you too - let us all be sharpened.

Chris

[86. Tom Neven said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 26:]

86

Jackie (#83)

No, the Pharisees and Saducees were not the most theologically correct of their time. They were the most religious, but that is not the same thing.

In fact, their theology was all wrong. In the example of the Pharisees, they had replaced most of the teaching of the Law with traditions that were put into place to "protect" the Law. In other words, they'd put a hedge around the Law, and they regarded any touching of the hedge as a transgressing of the Law itself. That is why Jesus denounced them for teaching tradition. It's also why they missed the Messiah.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not very "religious," but I do insist on good doctrine, as does Scripture itself in the numerous links I put in the original article, as also does the Apostle Paul who praised the Bereans (Acts 17) for not just taking his word for things but checking it against Scripture.

The "let's just establish a relationship and not worry too much about correct doctrine" can be found nowhere in Scripture. Even Jesus insisted that people judge rightly and not sin.

When you throw out Scripture and start playing fast and loose with what it teaches, all for the sake of "dialogue," you open yourself to all sorts of error. It is, in short, a make-it-up-as-you-go religion and not Christianity.

I will also address the "it's just fiction" argument several people have made in a future post.

[87. Tom Neven said the following at 2:58 PM on Jun 26:]

87

... oh, and a thought I forgot to make.

Why do people assume that anyone who insists on correct doctrine is automatically cold and unfeeling an unable to establish "relationships" and "dialogue"?

And why can't you be warm and giving and still teach correct doctrine?

It's a false dichotomy to insist on only one or the other.

[88. Samuel PG said the following at 3:22 PM on Jun 26:]

88

Chris Pack,
If in my post I sounded like I was saying that a Christian theologian does not sin or cannot live according to sinful patterns like all Christians can, I did not mean to. A Christian theologian is only different from all other Christians in vocation. My intended (though perhaps poorly presented) point was that a Christian theologian does not miss the Messiah in the same way that the Pharisees did. The primary problems for the Pharisees (but not for all of them, of course) was arrogance, pride, a fear of losing social importance, and a concept of works righteousness, not that their good theology prevented them from meeting the Messiah.
In response to your question, "A Christian theologian may have all of the right answers about God, but does that mean that we will see the fruit of love in his life?" The answer must be yes. If a theologian is a Christian theologian then he or she must be a Christian. A person cannot be a Christian and not exhibit the fruit of love in his or her life. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, and will be borne in anyone who has the Spirit. God bless.

[89. Chris Pack said the following at 4:09 PM on Jun 26:]

89

Tom,

I hear your heart in what you're saying...

I believe the issue here is that some folks, like myself, have been blessed by some things of God's character communicated in this book. Perhaps our relationships with the Lord have been impacted in a very positive manner. Mine has. And, perhaps we should have left it at that and never made an argument here.

Others, like yourself, seem to be more ready to throw the baby out with the bath water because you see inconsistencies with Scripture in parts (or perhaps all) of the book. I certainly don't believe this means you are cold, unfeeling, or incapable of relationship. Not sure others do either, though I confess I have not read every post here. In fact, I believe it shows your concern and love for believers, that you want them to walk in truth.

If I had to guess, I'd say you've been blessed or seen the Lord in ways you didn't expect in things of every day life, or even in entertainment that is not explicitly Christian? I certainly have, and I think that some of us have experienced that with "The Shack". It's not that we have elevated it to the place of "sound doctrine" or are putting it on the same level as Scripture, no more than you would every aspect of a movie that challenged you in a similar way, but maybe contained some questionable material. I don't think anyone here would do that. However, I think that we've somehow seen something of the character of God in "The Shack". That's not a value statement about us over you. For whatever reason we did. It also doesn't mean that we are deceived or incapable of discerning truth from error or any of that. We have the Spirit of God in us, same as you. We are equally capable in that as we all have that anointing from God if we are in Christ.

I think it's tough for us to read your review because we don't want folks to miss out on those aspects of the book that blessed us, that challenged us in our relationships with the Lord, and the influence of this organization will steer many away. Maybe that helps you understand where some of the positive comments about the book are coming from. I don't believe anyone is trying to overturn good theology here. I believe our hearts have been touched by something of God...that's all.

Chris

[90. Deanna said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 27:]

90

Tom,
I got this book to read, which came highly recommended by my brother, and was extremely disappointed. Many others, I know, loved this book, but I feel your review is dead-on. I actually had to push through it so hard, because there is so much that contradicts scripture. I realize this is a fiction book, and not scripture, but people I know were buying them up like candy, to pass out to their unbelieving friends, to try to entice them into believing in Christianity. Dangerous...and that's my problem. There are some people who can separate truth from untruth, but if you don't know the scriptures at all (maybe never read them), it's dangerous that this could easily become your view of God, which is in no way lines up with the Word, that we are judged by. Good job on the review, kudos to you!!!

[91. Ted Dean said the following at 6:16 PM on Jul 1:]

91

Tom,

I have read the book and like you, many friends came and told me enthusiastically to read it. I began to have trouble with the book even before Mack got to the shack simply because I do not like the context in the early chapters. Christian’s get enough of that type of exposure in the media, television and the movies. We don’t need it in our literature

Theology aside, it seems the book really is attempt of Paul Young to come to grips with his unfortunate experiences of life. Stepping back and evaluating the book as a whole, it seems that Paul has unfortunately made God into an image of his (Paul's) own creation. In a sense, he has made a simplistic graven image that answers all his question in the way author would like. It simply isn’t that way, God clearly gives us boundaries for our faith (biblical based doctrine) and we have no leeway to cross over into the uncharted territory of our imaginations. Simply saying it is fiction simply doesn’t make it OK.

[92. Jackie said the following at 7:15 PM on Jul 1:]

92

I stand corrected on two counts: (1) the Pharisees and Sadducees were not the most theologically correct groups of their time; and (2) after an intimate relationship is established with Jesus, the rules and theology will not automatically take care of themselves. However, the Pharisees and Sadducees each thought they were the most theologically correct groups of their time. Likewise, I like to think I'm the most theologically correct person around today, but I know I'm not; my theology (i.e. my knowledge about an infinite God) will always have room to grow. I shudder to think that I, too, could consider myself totally correct theologically, and then completely miss Jesus! My point is that we can think we're sound theologically, but we always have something more to learn about God. That's why I'm saying let The Shack (or perhaps another book, or a song, or whatever) cause you to step back and take a look at your theology, to see if it needs to grow some here and there. But definitely use the Bible as your only sure guide to correct rules and theology. They definitely will not take care of themselves apart from a study of the Bible.

[93. Samuel PG said the following at 1:10 PM on Jul 2:]

93

Jackie (92),
Thanks for that great post. You seem to have a very healthy perspective, which I know I can learn from.

[94. Harry said the following at 7:31 AM on Jul 3:]

94

I sort off said "What!!!" when I saw God was female. The whole idea is to get us out of our comfort zones and get rid of our preconceived ideas

I think you miss the point of the book. If we teach relationship with God instead of rules we will all be happier and less miserable. He was trying to show us we are accepted and to live as such. It has changed my life and given me victory that I have only dreamed of.
God in me and me in God WOW (John 16)

[95. clarence said the following at 6:15 PM on Jul 10:]

95

I haven't read the book. These comments are very telling though. I have my own story of Childhood introduction to sexual activity and the results of that. A few weeks after having received Christ I had an experience which caused me to lose my trust in God and his love for me. God changed me to see how He operates and how we must view Him in light of his word if we are going to have a victorious life in Christ. God operates by faith in His Word and what it says. Not in any expierence we have. God through Christ paid the price providing all we need to have victory, without faith it is impossible to please Him! God cannot respond to unbelief!

[96. Jenny said the following at 6:49 PM on Jul 10:]

96

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."--Philippians 1:18

[97. Iselchyresse said the following at 2:51 AM on Jul 11:]

97

How big is your God, that is God whom you serve?

Interestingly, many of the comments here reference "thinking outside the box". I would like to encourage that we consider "thinking outside the globe"/ What happens here on earth is not the ultimate. God is.

In respect to this, I agree that God can use a flawed book, person, or anything He would like to do whatsoever He wills. After all, He did use a donkey to get the attention of one man (bushes, parables, and sycamore trees are among other implements at His disposal to intersect and change lives when He wants to do so).

Our responsibility as Christians--also our great privilege-- is to love God, others and ourselves, and to teach these things to those who do not know them. The Shack is one resource, among thousands, to accomplish this. The book will enlarge and challenge the perspective of anyone who reads it.

Other resources for those who want to pump up the volume of their grey cells, or spiritual muscles, can visit oneplace.com and find access to hundreds of broadcasts, mp3s, articles--from many, sound theologians, and teachers.

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, where I was privileged to take a course entitled "Images of God in Fantasy Literature" (Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, Bunyan, and others were examined--all of whom received more than their fair share of criticism, critique, and bashing--take heart Mr. Young!) offers "Dimensions of the Faith ... a free online theological education program. The Ockenga Institute of Gordon-Conwell has taken seminary level courses and adapted them to a 'go at your own pace' distance learning program." Go to http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/dimensions/

Also Ligonier Ministries is also an excellent source of sound instruction (http://www.ligonier.org/).

For those who enjoy reading, and who want to examine anthropomorphism, biblical imagery which highlight the feminine qualities to God, and some challenging and engaging discussion on Christian women throughout history, are encouraged to read the writings of Dr. Catherine Clark-Kroeger and Dr. Aida Spenser, both New Testament scholars at the seminary.

Yes, pick up and read--then dialogue for after all iron does sharpen iron. Thanks for reading.

More later...

[98. Carrie T. said the following at 5:29 PM on Aug 6:]

98

"Mack already understands that "Papa" is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor."

This statement is not true. Yes, Mack has trust issues with God because of his abusive pastor father, however, Mack came to know God as "Papa" because his wife, Nan, refers to God as Papa. I see nothing wrong with this because God is our Abba Father. I just wanted to set some facts straight.

I just finished reading The Shack last night and really enjoyed it. Yes, there were a couple theologically troubling parts, but overall, I thought it was a beautiful example of God's love for His children and our free-will to push Him away. It reminds me of hearing a great sermon, one that is founded in Biblical truth but uses contemporary examples to make the points more relevant and relatable. This is what I feel The Shack does. I think fiction is a great medium to show God's love and truth in a new refreshing way. I also think that because the work is fiction it is easier to understand that Papa has to be in the form of a woman because of Mack's father issues and the fact that Missy's abductor was also an evil man. Later Papa is shown as a man, which I believe proves that the author doesn't believe God is a woman (meaning he doesn't believe in goddess worship). God has always shown himself in many ways and will always make Himself known to His children in whatever way He has to in order to get their attention.

Aside from all of the threaded disagreements, thank you for posting about The Shack in general, because it always important to be challenged in our faith to continue growth with the Lord.

[99. Ted Slater said the following at 6:33 PM on Aug 6:]

99

Carrie T, you wrote, "God has always shown himself in many ways and will always make Himself known to His children in whatever way He has to in order to get their attention."

Can you provide some examples, specifically examples of where God presents Himself as something other than lofty and fearsome?

[100. Carrie T. said the following at 7:39 PM on Aug 6:]

100

Ted, thanks for writing! I think that in the Bible God does show Himself in “lofty and fearsome” ways, such as the burning bush. What I meant by my statement is that the Lord shows Himself not so often physically these days, but in smaller ways. He is a God of details in that way. The Holy Spirit influences believers and, in some cases, non-believers intuitively. The Lord also works through His Word, in church, through worship music, and within relationships (which "The Shack" actually mentions a lot, although I did not discover this truth from The Shack, just to be clear).
I think God as an individual (for lack of a better word, since the Trinity is complicated!) is lofty and fearsome, in the best sense possible. But I think Jesus is an example of God making Himself known in other, more relational ways, and I think the Holy Spirit works intuitively and actively in our society, as well, to make God known. I guess I am learning that this is the complicated aspect of the Trinity, all three aspects work together to show the power and mercy of God in different ways to different people.
I have just always been taught, and have learned through personal experience, that God can not be limited. He works in miraculous ways daily to reach people in a way that will get their attention and bring them to Him, whether that is through circumstances, people, church, the Bible, etc.
I’m not sure if I even answered your question, though!

[1. Cassie said the following at 9:49 AM on Jun 19:]

1

I read Tim Challies' review of The Shack and I was actually quite disappointed. Young wasn't trying to say that this is the way things are and he has said in an interview that he doesn't necessarily see everything the way he wrote it.

For me this book brought an opportunity to step outside of my own perspective which is skewed at best and ask God maybe to expand my view of Him outside of the box that I've placed Him in. We all have boxes and as humans we can have the tendency to put God into the boxes of our own experiences rather than get to know Him for who He is. You're right, God is the judge and in the end we will all be judged. But I still think that He will do it out of love and not out of condemnation. There are consequences to sin, but knowing the heart of God as a merciful father, I don't doubt that it hurts His heart that we have to endure these consequences.

Yeah, there are parts that I don't agree with in the book, but this book also made God more concrete to me even though I've grown up in the church and even lead a few ministries. I think that this book can be a good way for people to see that God is good and loving, and it may lead them to make a choice to get to know Him and He can take care of the theology from there. The guy wasn't trying to write Scripture, just a novel. I have very strong convictions am nowhere near being liberal. But I do believe that there are some things to take a stand against and I don't think that this book is one of them.

[2. Jacob said the following at 10:04 AM on Jun 19:]

2

Tom,
Regarding your last point about Young having a low view of Scripture, I think it is important to stress that (at least as you have explained it) he is denying the sufficiency of Scripture. Those interested in looking at this topic more would do well to start Here

[3. Annika said the following at 10:11 AM on Jun 19:]

3

Oh my goodness, the story you review, and in fact your post, both make it sound like Christians believe in three gods. What ever happened to "The Lord our God, the Lord is One?"

No wonder my Muslim friends think that Christianity is pretty odd. At least they think that "There is no God but God."

I have seen a lot of this emphasis on the trinity lately, and I find it really confusing. There is one God.

[4. Annika said the following at 10:12 AM on Jun 19:]

4

PS I TOTALLY agree that no one should be anthropomorphizing God, especially not as a woman. The female god thing has gotten a little out of control nowdays as certain Christians try to make religion more appealing to the new-agey types.

[5. Ted Slater said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 19:]

5

Annika -- the Trinity is a mystery. God exists in community, though He is one. It is an odd doctrine. A biblical one, though.

[6. Nicole said the following at 10:23 AM on Jun 19:]

6

Ive only read maybe the first few pages, but everyone i've talked to absolulely loved it and highly recomended it. The author even came to my church recently and did an interview after the service, and the weekend before that they had a retreat. So I guess not everyone shares your opinion...

[7. Tami said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 19:]

7

I haven't read the book; honestly, I don't want to (it doesn't even really interest me, frankly... not a big fan of most modern Christian fiction to begin with). I don't know anyone who's heard of it (outside of Internet-land), though I did overhear a little girl in a Christian bookstore get enthused that the author was coming to town. Don't get me wrong; I'm not shrugging my shoulders over it, I just am amazed at how popular it's gotten, and how quickly.

I know I'm going to catch some flak for saying this, but the whole phenomenon strikes me as Da Vinci Code-esque. A book by a heretofore unknown (or barely known) author who wants to share the "real truth" of things (compared to what the Bible, or a patriarchal religion, supposedly tell us), comes out of nowhere to be a cultural phenomenon, despite its not-so-hot fiction/writing style verging on purple prose (which even *fans* will admit to).

I guess in sum, I wish that Christians would focus more on developing their own deeper, personal, powerful, and mystical relationship based on what God reveals about Himself in the Bible and by His Spirit, rather than relying secondhand on what one guy wrote as a work of fiction. The God of the Bible is SO much more powerful than anyone we could ever imagine on our own!

My $.02
_____

Annika (3) -- the trinity is a concept confirmed throughout the history of Christianity. While not referred to as the "trinity" as such in Scripture, God has, indeed, revealed Himself as three Persons, who is One. A good place to see this in Scripture is in Ephesians 4. While I grant you it's not an easy thought to grasp (and I make no claims to have my head completely around it either!), it is indeed true. :)

[8. Ted Slater said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 19:]

8

Nicole -- Tom didn't say that the book was not enjoyable. He's simply saying that it's not biblically sound.

[9. Tom Neven said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 19:]

9

Ted (#8)

Although if you want my aesthetic review, it comes down to one word: meh.

[10. Joey said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 19:]

10

@Cassie (1):

"Young wasn't trying to say that this is the way things are and he has said in an interview that he doesn't necessarily see everything the way he wrote it."

I haven't heard the interview, but my first question would then be: Why did he write it that way? In other words, why write a book about such important issues if it's not the way you see things?

I do believe that a novel can convey important truths about God through unorthodox and perhaps surprising means - but a direct, non-allegorical encounter with God as in "The Shack" describes must be handled very carefully.

An example of another unusual Christian novel that I would endorse is "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis, which I'm currently reading for the second time. How Lewis weaves spiritual truths into the story fascinates me.

[11. Derek Wong said the following at 11:18 AM on Jun 19:]

11

I haven't read the book, but I enjoyed the review/critique nonetheless. Thanks for efficiently speaking up for truth.

[12. SarahJane said the following at 11:32 AM on Jun 19:]

12

I really appreciated this review, because I have many friends who are raving over "The Shack." Like Tami (#7) said, the book seems almost too popular. It seems to me that whenever a book gains in popularity like this, there is generally (at the least) a watered-down version of Scripture and theology therein. I would be interested to read it - with a Bible in the other hand - so that I can more effectively dialogue with my friends, but I am cautious to do so. Thanks again for your thoughts, Tom.

[13. Samuel PG said the following at 11:53 AM on Jun 19:]

13

Tom,
Thanks for such a substantial review. As a theology major, I would also like to thank you for using the proper theological terms for the heresies involved. Is it odd that I get excited to read or hear the term patripassionism?

[14. brx said the following at 11:55 AM on Jun 19:]

14

Tom,

Wow! Wow... I doubt Will Young ever advocated that anyone take his book as the Word of God. I think he's only trying to illustrate some of his understandings about God in a non-threatening manner. I agree, it does swing to the left side, but I bet Will is now closer to the right than he has ever been. And I hope some of Will's illustrations to his children protect them from the many love-lacking, jerk 'Christians' who carry their Bibles in the form of a bat.

I suppose I'm a little defensive of Will Young and his attempt to communicate God's love. Likely, it's because I've actually met so many people who've been terribly abused by others with rigid (and twisted) doctrine claiming to follow God or Christ. It's no wonder so many people think Christians are jerks!

I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love. Yes, I know they're supposed to go hand-in-hand, but we are sinful, out-of-balance creatures. I think a lot of 'Christians' will be surprised at the Judgement when they see who's in and who's out.

Grace, peace & growing closer with God.

[15. Samuel PG said the following at 12:01 PM on Jun 19:]

15

Nicole (6),
The fact is that many Christians have never studied theology in much depth, not to mention church history. It is in these two fields of study, informed thoroughly through study of the Scripture, that we learn to differentiate between good theology and subtly heretical theology. The heresies have had as much success as they have because they do a good job of looking like the real thing, with little tweaks and adjustments in matters of extreme importance.
I know that in the west we love our democratic principles and the idea that everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone is equally capable of making a judgment. Someone who has been through medical school is better equipped to diagnose illnesses and someone like Tom with an education in theology is better equipped to identify theological problems than the average Christian.

[16. BDB said the following at 12:08 PM on Jun 19:]

16

Interesting...

The book IS popular. I have an unread copy on my shelf. But unlike SATC, I think it's worthwhile to read something that is popular in church circles. There are some popular non-fiction books in Christian circles where I think there are conflicts with scripture. I think I'll read the book before I say anything else.

[17. Christy said the following at 12:14 PM on Jun 19:]

17

I have to disagree with you, Tom. What I loved about this book is the way that it portrayed God. It grew and stretched me in how I see God. I come from a conservative Christian home and due to that as well as my personality traits, I tend towards legalism and trying to please God. What I need instead of trying to follow all of the rules is to fall in love with God and then the rest will fall into place. Yes, discipline and truth are also important, but in all of life there must be balance. This book speaks to Christians like me. What Young is doing is painting a picture of God that is different than what most people think. Yeah, he may not be COMPLETELY right theologically, but I think it is important as Christians to be able to consider different points of view that don't line up completely with our conservative Christian viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I am passionate about truth, and get made fun of a lot for my "old-fashioned" and "conservative" world views. However, I don't think that Young was trying to make theological statements or saying that he is completely right, he was just writing out of his own experience and it was beautiful.
I wish that we as Christians could learn what is really important and valid to speak out against and what is not.

[18. Boston Matt said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 19:]

18

Hey everyone,

Well I read the book and I did a review for my church on it. I agree that there are some really deep issues and I also had some hard times with the book.

I always have a hard time though when we so quickly state that God is a God of wrath to. There is no doubt that this is the case and in many ways we quickly ignore that fact but I don't think that this book was focused on that side of God. I doubt that Young would deny this about God either.

My critique of the book was the ending was wicked shotty and horrible but I enjoyed it as FICTION. I guess that is where my question comes in for everybody?

In C.S. Lewis' book The Last Battle, he has someone getting into Aslan's country who didn't even believe in Aslan! Does that mean we toss the book out as heresy? Especially given how close Lewis bordered universalism? I would think not! I agree we have to correct what was wrong but I think Young touched on something we all don't understand. God sovereignty vs. horrendous pain. Do any of us understand that? And remember folks...it's fiction!

[19. Dani said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 19:]

19

As someone who owns The Shack (I requested it for Christmas after reading glowing reviews on Amazon), I have to say that I'm torn about the book. I read about halfway and then lost interest, which I think is more a blessing from God (to move me away from heresies and back into scripture) and less about a lack of interesting story. The story itself is fairly interesting.

My first thoughts reading the book were something like, "I would never give this book to a new Christian." Why? Because even as a person who considers myself strongly grounded in doctrine, I kept having to remind myself of scriptural truth and tear my mind away from the pretty images Young designs.

The reason I'm torn about the book is that despite its heresies, there are good moments of truth. I seem to remember one scene where Mack is in a garden with the Holy Spirit; I can't recall what the lesson learned there is, but I remember finding it truthful. (Yes, I realize that that isn't very helpful, but I'm at work and don't have the book handy.)

So, I guess my question then is this: is it okay to use truthful stories and images from a heretical book? I know people frequently use examples from non-Christian movies or books, but what about something like The Shack--a heretical book that poses as true Christianity?

[20. Josh said the following at 12:28 PM on Jun 19:]

20

Honestly I think you're taking the book way too seriously. There are certainly theological missteps, but then again its a work of fiction and doesn't claim to be a theology textbook. I would recommend it as a conversation starter for non-Christians because it covers a vast array of topics and introduces the idea of an intimate, relational God that blows away preconceived notions of the distant, observer-in-the-sky deity. Its not a substitute for Scripture (never claims to be) but read it with discernment and charity and there's a lot of edifying stuff in there.

Also, count me in the crowd that had no problem with God being anthropomorphized as a woman. Contrary to your post, God is sometimes spoken of in scripture in feminine terms. Now, Christ taught us to pray to God the Father, and that's what I'm going to do until I die. But I'm not going to pretend that is intimately linked with gender for God like it is with us.

[21. Julia said the following at 12:32 PM on Jun 19:]

21

Tom,

A million thanks for writing this review and actually making it clear how subtle heresy can be.

The danger of heresy in novels is that everything a person reads does influence them (though they may not admit it). No one is arguing that the novelist is declaring his book to be truth, but if it gives some unknowing person incorrect theology it could be the difference between heaven or hell for that soul. And that is a very big deal.

As for the use of the Bible as a baseball bat: In my experience unwelcome truth often feels like a baseball bat even when delivered by a meek and kind Christian. Tom's review was not unkind, personally attacking or offensive. It was merely a criticism of The Shack on its theological merits - which are lacking.

Sola Scriptura

[22. Jerry said the following at 12:33 PM on Jun 19:]

22

But, Christie, most of us would consider this something important and valid to speak out against... because we see it ruining the theology of our friends - and almost everything valuable in this life starts and ends with our idea of God.

Regardless of authorial intent, the CONTENT of the book is not only troubling but also dangerous because it paints an incredibly inaccurate view of God relative to the one He's shared with us in His word. Though I hear your arguments for books like this shifting our views, what value do they have when those same transformations of our minds can take place by reading the Bible prayerfully and vulnerably instead?

[23. brx said the following at 12:37 PM on Jun 19:]

23

...thought maybe I should add that I can understand a bit of Will's issue with Christians and seminary professors who teach that God has

"completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper..."

I grew up in a very academic church where it seemed God was more a system of beliefs and rules. I had read much of the Bible. However, it wasn't until my college years that I met people alive with a living relationship with God in Christ.

If you have non-Christian or baby-Christian friends who are reading "The Shack" and enjoying it, may I suggest: try to resist putting on your 'Bible-answer-man' cape to correct any false doctrine they _might_ be pondering. Instead, after they finish the book, consider inviting them to hang out and read one of the Gosples together, maybe the book of Mark (short). Don't try to impress them with your knowledge and understanding; just ask and discuss what y'all see going on with Jesus and the people.

God is awesome and heavy and all (holy) but I think sometimes we can make Him out to be too heavy - like we have to carry all His baggage (to borrow Suzanne's analogy). I think sometimes we forget that God intended to carrying all the baggage Himself and not to load us down with it.

Grace, peace & growing closer to God

[24. Nicole said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 19:]

24

Its a good idea to not take ourselves TOO seriously when it comes to books or movies, which I feel boundless in general definely does. A lot of people are just looking for something good to read casually especially during these summer months. And every person has a different idea of what good is. Some people will like it, some wont, read it or don't read it. If you're an adult you can make up your own mind. I sometimes think that there is a huge Christian snobbery problem. Its like the more someone condemns the media choices of others, the more intelligent and holy they become by comparison. Its like they arn't happy until they have made you feel guilty, they are right and you are wrong. ugh!

[25. cn said the following at 12:49 PM on Jun 19:]

25

No one has to work hard to convince me that this book is quite heretical. I was concerned at the first mention of God the Father being portrayed as a woman, who still goes by "Papa." That has confusion written all over it.

[26. Joey said the following at 12:53 PM on Jun 19:]

26

I'm a little mystified by some of the perspectives mentioned here... it seems several are arguing that a work of fiction need not line up 100% with Biblical theology. To which I respond, why not? Why should we excuse theological issues in Christian fiction simply because it's fiction?

Now I know people will say, "because fiction isn't reality!" But fiction is a vehicle for communicating truth - using a made-up world or story to tell us something about our world. While the story may differ from reality, the truth communicated ought to be in line with Scripture.

Once again, if we would say that a non-fiction work on suffering or God's sovereignty ought to be correct on the whole about theology, why are we holding a work of fiction that seeks to address these issues to a lower standard? This is not simply an entertaining story - it has a message.

[27. Julia H said the following at 1:04 PM on Jun 19:]

27

Could someone please explain the concept of solo scriptura to me in a few points? Also, do most evangelicals believe that there is no prophesy anymore? Does God no longer speaks directly to people? Is there scriptural support for such views?

[28. brx said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 19:]

28

Samuel (#15) writes:

"Someone who has been through medical school is better equipped to diagnose illnesses and someone like Tom with an education in theology is better equipped to identify theological problems than the average Christian."

Whoa! Please be careful about assuming the quality of one's education and judgements. Nothing against Tom Neven - I think he's shown himself to be a pretty good Biblical theologian. But Samuel, that's the same kind of reasoning that leads to people accepting poor or hasty medical advice from doctors. It's the same reasoning some church leaders used to keep the Bible out of the hands of lay-people and keep themselves on pedestals. It's also the same reasoning many cult leaders have used to stay in power teaching their twisted doctrine [the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda is a recent example].

People should feel free to ask any honest question - and multiple times. The Lord is not to big for honest questions. So many important ones can be answered simply by reading & prayer, straight through the Bible on one's own.

God speed.

[29. Tami said the following at 1:29 PM on Jun 19:]

29

Julia H -- "Sola Scriptura" means "Scripture alone." It was a big part of the Reformation. Summarized to its basics, it means that we take our understanding of God and what He has to say only from Scripture, rather than the tradition of people or institutions. All things -- including guidance, etc. -- must be filtered through and checked against the truth of God's Word. This is not to deny that God speaks directly to people; however, if the idea contradicts Scripture, it "loses".

I know we love our Wikipedia 'round here ;) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[30. Faith said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 19:]

30

"Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine."
- Wikipedia

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_sola_sproul.html
Article by R. C. sproul

"We defend it and express our deep concern about it because we believe it is the truth. It is a truth we do not want to negotiate. We earnestly desire dialogue with our evangelical brothers and colaborers who differ from us."

[31. BDB said the following at 1:40 PM on Jun 19:]

31

Julia H (#27) wrote:

>>Also, do most evangelicals believe that there is no prophesy anymore? Does God no longer speaks directly to people?<<

Well, many of the people who attend churches in the Charismatic wing of Evangelical churches grew up in a different tradition. There are lots of people I know who switched because they came to a point where they realized God was speaking. Some people point out that much of the growth in church attendance is among the Charismatic denominations. They attribute this growth to allowing the Holy Spirit to change people's lives - and when people's lives are changed, they believe.

I hasten to add that it's a point of contention and often controversial. I know lots of people who adamantly believed that God did not speak directly to people in modern times. Then something happened to them personally, and their theology changed.

[32. BDB said the following at 1:44 PM on Jun 19:]

32

So, does studying a theology textbook violate "sola scriptura?" Why or why not?

[33. Faith said the following at 1:45 PM on Jun 19:]

33

I think the Bible speaks for itself. Truth matters.

Proverbs 14:5 A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

Zechariah 8:16 These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts;

2 Corinthians 4:1-2 Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

[34. Tami said the following at 2:08 PM on Jun 19:]

34

BDB (32) -- To answer your question, no. I can't give a great explanation why, but my waggish answer is to say that Luther's Werke wouldn't exist if people couldn't study theological texts w/o contradicting "sola scriptura". :)

I think most people understand that theology texts are still a person's (educated) interpretation, and that any fault is with the writer and not the original text. Your "grip" is still on Scripture, not on upholding the teachings of any certain theologian.

[35. Bethany M said the following at 2:26 PM on Jun 19:]

35

Dr. Al Mohler spent an entire radio program on this book, and he did an excellent job of breaking down the theology.

Young claims to believe in the Bible. Whether or not he does, I don't know. But the problem with The Shack, The DaVinci Code, and others like them is even though they're 'fiction,' many people will unwittingly take them in as truth.

[36. Bev said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 19:]

36

I was given the book as a gift recently, and had the same reaction to it as you, Tom. An excellent review--you are right on. The author has some good thoughts, but it's a shame he didn't choose another way in which to express them. The book will only confuse people more.

[37. DannieA said the following at 3:24 PM on Jun 19:]

37

To Tom:

I'm an avid book reader (I have not heard of this book until now) and I take books as stories and try to imagine a story in my head. The stories usually end up being fiction or fantastic....if there are good themes then I'm happy, yet I don't take them as stamped spiritual truths. That's what the Bible is for.

Are you saying that anyone that writes a book has to write from a Church scripture perspective? God has always been referred in the male pronoun in the Bible, yet NT gives him feminine traits in parables.....looking for the lost sheep, sweeping for the lost coin etc. So the fact that God appears as a woman and ends up as a man could just be an imaginative license to line up all the qualities that God portrays. Remember we are all made in the image of God so therefore even women are made in God's image....so what does that mean?

I guess what i'm saying is that authors should be left with their creative license to write what their minds have created....we have a choice whether to read it or not....and we should be smart enough to know that a book is a book and not the Bible.

Is that being too naive? I am speaking as a person who reads avidly for information and just for fun, as well as reading Devotionals and the Bible for inspiration and truth.

[38. Jo said the following at 3:55 PM on Jun 19:]

38

brx said "I agree, it does swing to the left side, but I bet Will is now closer to the right than he has ever been."

I read this as meaning heresy/truth more than left/right - I don't know if that's quite what you meant but it's a really important point. If a person is travelling along a path leading towards a greater understanding of the truth, harsh condemnation of the still-shaky points of their faith could do a lot more harm than good.

that's not to say problem areas shouldn't be identified, especially if they're expressed in a book that's being widely read (I hadn't heard of it before this post so I can't comment on it specifically) - but grace, grace, grace and gentle correction, not fire and brimstone on the head of someone who may well be moving in the right direction.

[39. BDB said the following at 5:38 PM on Jun 19:]

39

Tami (#34) wrote:

>>but my waggish answer is to say that Luther's Werke wouldn't exist if people couldn't study theological texts w/o contradicting "sola scriptura". :)<<

So, if I understand correctly, everything should be compared to scripture, and the non-scriptural writing should be discarded where it conflicts with scripture, right?

While I haven't done theology course work, I've read enough to know that theologians conflict. So I would tend to do the same thing with a theology textbook that I would do with a novel: compare it to scripture and discard the conflicts.

I'm thinking of one book in particular that has influenced a friend of mine. My alarm comes from the chapter where the well-known author encourages people to discard their marriage if they're not happy. Scripture obviously conflicts with this. It concerns me whenever a Christian starts talking about the need to "put themselves first." Jesus did talk about "counting the cost" before doing something, which I would take to include avoiding burning out by starting something you can't finish. But Jesus was also quite explicit in the need to be a servant, and not be focused on selfishness.

[40. Julia Seymour said the following at 6:13 PM on Jun 19:]

40

All fiction doesn't have to be held to a high standard - but anything claiming or being represented as Christian fiction should be.

[41. Christy said the following at 6:22 PM on Jun 19:]

41

Jerry,
I do see your points and understand where you are coming from. Truth is so important. However, it is just as dangerous to the gospel to come down so heavy on doctrine and stating the "truth" and miss other things about God or risk turning someone away from God. That is what I see happening so often in conservative Christian circles. I know, because I used to be one of those heavy handed Christians who would call anyone/everyone out on where their doctrine was wrong. But the older I get, the more I realize that I don't have all of the answers, I don't even have most of the answers, nor will I ever. Humility is so key in these situations. Yes, there is absolute truth and there are non-negotiables, but it is so easy to start defending our doctrines and what we are comfortable with or used to rather than what is really truth.

[42. Sandi said the following at 9:28 PM on Jun 19:]

42

Joey (#26) is absolutely right - even fiction, if trying to teach spiritual truth, should line up with scripture. If it doesn't, it will confuse at best and deceive at worst.

And I would ask Josh (#20) to say which scripture verses show God in feminine terms; I've never seen that. Even the verses showing a woman sweeping the house and looking for the lost coin - Jesus was illustrating the concept of not giving up until you find something. He was not anthropomorphizing God as a woman. And the one about the shepherd looking for the lost sheep - shepherds were men.

Brx (#14) said, "I've actually met so many people who've been terribly abused by others with rigid (and twisted) doctrine claiming to follow God or Christ. It's no wonder so many people think Christians are jerks!
I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love."

I think you need to have right love AND right doctrine, and that if you obey right doctrine, you will be practicing right love. Those abusive people you describe were just claiming to follow right doctrine, but they definitely DIDN'T follow it at all. They obviously either had not read the Bible, or they were flat-out disobeying it. And God says in His Word that they will be accountable for that. I don't see how reading a book which paints a VERY inaccurate picture of what is obviously supposed to be God is going to help that. Right Biblical doctrine, if followed, will definitely lead to right love. "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4:8 - in fact, the whole book of I John is an excellent treatise on God's love)

I haven't read the book yet, but if I do, I will definitely be wary. Thanks, Tom, for the heads-up. I will pray that this book will not be used by the enemy of our souls to confuse, but rather, even in its imperfect doctrine, will be used to draw people to a closer relationship with God, and that people will delve deep into the Bible and see what it really says.

[43. farmer Tom said the following at 9:32 PM on Jun 19:]

43

I think it's better to have right love with a little bit of doctrine askew than perfect doctrine without right practice of love.

First a comment about this thought.

As a farmer, maybe I can illustrate how absurdly insane that comment is,...

We regularly have to give shots to the pigs here on the farm for a disease call PRRS Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome. If they don't get the shot, they get lung dieases and die. So every pig on the farm gets the shot. Now it so happens that we do not change the needle after giving every pig it's shot. And several months ago we had a pig who got an infection from a dirty needle. One little tiny germ got moved from a carrier pig to the next pig, and injected under his skin. One little tiny germ, and it grew and it grew more and more of his type were produced until the time I found him, he had a mass of infection the size of a basketball on the right side of his neck right behind the right ear. One little heresy festers and grows until literally thousands may spend their eternity in hell, because purity of the gospel doesn't matter???

You see if I were to spit in the glass of water you are drinking from, it's only a small percentage of the volume of the glass, so (a little bit of doctrine askew) is just a drop of spit in a glass of water, no big deal right, drink up son, the waters fine, I only spit in it once. The infection only started with one little tiny germ, it's no big deal, right????

Now to the question I really want to talk about,

#3 Annika asked,

What ever happened to "The Lord our God, the Lord is One?"

No wonder my Muslim friends think that Christianity is pretty odd. At least they think that "There is no God but God."

I have seen a lot of this emphasis on the trinity lately, and I find it really confusing. There is one God.

Ted responded,
the Trinity is a mystery. God exists in community, though He is one. It is an odd doctrine. A biblical one, though.

Sorry Ted, but I don't believe it is nearly as mysterious as some people try to make it, several illustrations.

Annika, what did you have for breakfast this morning, ever looked at an egg??

I talk about food a lot, if you ever saw me you would know why. Anyway, for lunch I had fresh strawberries from our garden, on top of home made yellow cake. We had yellow cake because we had a birthday and the lovely Mrs.farmer made an angel food cake for the birthday party.

Now Annika, where did the angel food cake come from? Mrs. farmer separated all of the egg whites from the egg yolks, saved the egg shells to put in the garden, because they are high in calcium. Three parts of the egg, each completely different, the egg yolk, the egg white and the egg shell. Each with a different function and use, yet the egg can not exist with out all three. Ever seen an egg without a shell, ever seen an egg without a yolk, ever seen an egg without the white? I grew up on a farm, I seen all three , yet they were memorable because they were freaks of nature, abnormalities. An egg has three parts the shell the yolk and the white, without all three you throw it away as useless refuse.

Annika, where do you park your car? In a parking space? Or in a garage? I helped a friend build a new garage, it is a worthless garage, for two reasons. First, because its not attached to his house, and since we live in the frozen tundra about half the year, building a garage without attaching it to the house is a crime against humanity. (That's a joke, OK.) The main reason his garage is worthless though is that it's incomplete. He built a two car garage 24 X 36 (864 square feet). But the parking space in a garage is not just square feet. Space is defined as length X with X height. Until my friend added walls and a roof to his slab of concrete 24 X 36, it was absolutely worthless as a garage because he failed to ad a third dimension.

The God of the universe is not One Father plus One Son plus One Spirit = Three Gods. The God of the Bible is One Father X One Son X One Spirit = One God.

In Genesis 1:26 God said,"Let us make man in our image."

Now, if the God of the Bible refers to Himself as us, by what standard can you attempt to limit the scope and majesty of the Creator God by attempting to limit His very nature.

Ever thought about what happened the day that John the Baptist immersed Jesus. Mark and Luke both record the following,

Mark 1:9-11:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Notice who is present here, Jesus, the Son of God, The Spirit of God descending in the form of a dove, and God the Father speaking.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"

John 1:1-3 says that the Word made all things, and that the Word is God, and verse 14 says "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"

The Triune God is one of the Greatest Truths of the Bible. A Creator God, who loved His creation so much, that He provided a way of salvation for sinful mankind by sacrificing Himself for our sins. He was the only perfect sinless sacrifice, and He was the only one capable of paying the penalty for our sins.

If your God is a one dimensional, limited space, kind of self-centered and self-serving God, without the ability or the desire to demonstrate his love for you by sacrificing himself for you, you can have him.

I'll take the Triune God of the Bible, Thank You very much. In Jesus name Amen.

Let me recommend a book for you to read Annika. it's no longer in print, but I say several used copies on Amazon recently.

The God You Should Know by J. Sidlow Baxter.

This book helped me tremendously in my understanding of the Triune God. My dad recommended it to me, he said that it helped him in his understanding of the Triune God.

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 9:36 PM on Jun 19:]

44

BTW, Yes the infected pig story is true.

I could tell you what I did about the basketball sized mass of infection.....

but some of you city people with weak stomachs and thin skin would likely get sick to your stomach,

lets just say it wasn't pleasant, and leave it at that,

If you really want to know, ................ ask Ted to let me post it, but be warned it's not pretty.

[45. Chin Wee said the following at 10:10 PM on Jun 19:]

45

This is for all those who think that just theology and doctrines are all rigid and restrictive.

Let's put it this way, good theology and doctrine are ultimately liberating and WILL ALWAYS result in proper doxology. The rigid and "heavy-handed" doctrines that you are referring to are bad theologies and bad doctrines.

The truth of the Bible liberates us, and shows us the wonder and majesty of the Gospel and God.

[46. Dan Hall said the following at 10:24 PM on Jun 19:]

46

For me, one of the most poignant and "spiritual" moments in reading the book was how Papa bent over backwards to be God in the most nonthreatening manner for Mack to see how much Papa loved both Mack and his daughter. This was done so that Mack would return to a relationship with God after the terrible tragedy. When I read Scripture I see the same thing, especially when I read Psalm 103. The tender love of the Father shown in Scripture moves me to tears often, even in worship. The Shack is about concepts contained within Sacred Scripture, but should not be compared to it. For every theological construct in the book that may be inaccurate, there are concepts that convey the truth about God that "plain folk" can understand. Not everyone gets theology, but they get Jesus and his love expressed through action.
As far as being bent to one side of God's character, keep the story in mind: Mack's daughter was murdered and he was hurting and doubting all he knew about God. God moved in a very deliberate way to get Mack to understand who He is, and of course in this situation expressing His holiness might have pushed Mack further away. There is a place and a time and a season for all things as Ecclesiastes tells us. The Shack gives a glimpse of how this works.

[47. Mason Moore said the following at 10:39 PM on Jun 19:]

47

Annika said: "PS I TOTALLY agree that no one should be anthropomorphizing God, especially not as a woman."

Here's a quote from Exodus 33:23 where God is speaking to Moses: “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”

Just in this one line, I count 3 instances of anthropomorphization: God's hand, God's face and God's backside. Kinda hard to diss anthropomorphization when the Bible itself is so full of it.

[48. Tami said the following at 10:51 PM on Jun 19:]

48

BDB (39) -- yep, that's about what I'm trying to explain. :) Nothing is truly authoritative except the Word of God. This is not to take away from the many, many scholars and theologians who have applied heart, mind, and soul to dedicated and Spirit-led study and analysis of the Word; it's just to say that even they, like we, have faults and limitations to our understanding.

As a personal example, I am really moved by Martin Luther's testimony and his dedication to grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, and so on. And at the same time, even a cursory study of his biography reveals weaknesses and error... thus precluding his work from ever taking precedence over what God says. It's also why I would hesistate to call myself a Luther-ist (if there was such a thing).

As to whatever book your friend read... my goodness. That's a perfect example of what I'm driving at. I love books, but not enough to sacrifice what God says in order to follow what they say to the letter. As I know you know (just by all you've said on this blog), discernment is key.

And yeah, I've read some real garbage in "Christian" books, especially pertaining to marriage. I wonder why that is?

[49. Samuel PG said the following at 1:06 AM on Jun 20:]

49

brx (28),
Thanks for replying to my comment. Just so you know, I did make a quick check of Tom's theological credentials (Boundless Line gives a brief background of each of its contributors).
Aside from that, I have to disagree with you. In response to my saying that a person with a theological education is better equipped to identify theological problems, you wrote,
"that's the same kind of reasoning that leads to people accepting poor or hasty medical advice from doctors. It's the same reasoning some church leaders used to keep the Bible out of the hands of lay-people and keep themselves on pedestals. It's also the same reasoning many cult leaders have used to stay in power teaching their twisted doctrine [the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda is a recent example]."
The fact that people think doctors with years of medical schooling are better prepared to diagnose their illnesses than themselves leads them to accept poor medical advice from them? I suppose that does happen, but in the minority of cases. Generally speaking, I believe any person would be better off trusting a person educated in medicine rather than themselves when it came to their thoughts on a medical diagnosis.
As far as cult leaders go, a brief study of such leaders will reveal that most of them have woefully inadequate theological education, so it is doubtful that they claim that they must be followed due to their academic credentials. They generally claim that they are a prophet, that only they know the proper way to interpret Scripture, or that God speaks directly to them. You might say that a person educated in theology also claims that only they know how to interpret Scripture, but that would not be accurate. A well-trained theologian has learned to submit their own personal interpretation of Scripture to those interpretations that have been handed down by the many great Christian intellects who have read the Bible before them. A theologian, above all people, should know better than to claim that orthodoxy resides in their own, as opposed to the Church's, views.
The fact of the matter is that if many cult leaders had had a better theological education (and perhaps a more obedient heart), there would be fewer cults.
Finally, it is practically a truism that a person with a theological education will be better at identifying theological problems than a person without it. Before I began studying theology, I never realized that believing that God the Father also suffered on the cross was a heresy (patripassionism). I never realized that saying Jesus had the body and soul of a man but the mind of God was a heresy (Apollinarianism). I have a feeling that I would have recognized that the teaching that God the Son was actually God the Father's first and most perfect creation, through whom He created everything else, was a heresy but I would have had a hard time identifying it, let alone naming it (Arianism).
I believe that God is big enough for any and every question, but we cannot demand that He answer our questions through our own prayer time and personal study of the Bible. Of course we should do those things, but if we are asking Him whether or not a teaching is heretical and dangerous to the Church and the Christian mind, perhaps we should look for Him to answer us in the creeds, confessions, and treatises of the great theologians and leaders whom He has already given the Church.

[50. Leah said the following at 1:14 AM on Jun 20:]

50

farmer Tom, why do you always have to be insulting of people when they've done nothing wrong? Annika was just confused and didn't understand something and you were rude; and then you went and said city people had "weak stomachs" and "thin skin"... it's simply uncalled for and definitely not loving.

[51. Leah said the following at 1:16 AM on Jun 20:]

51

Tami said "the whole phenomenon strikes me as Da Vinci Code-esque."

YES! That's exactly what came to my mind when I read about this.

[52. Josh said the following at 1:35 AM on Jun 20:]

52

RE #42: Sandi,

An example would be Psalm 90:2, where God is said to have "brought forth" the earth and the world. The Hebrew word used here is one that refers to a woman giving birth. Another example would be Matthew 23:37, where God gathers up his children like a hen gathers her chicks.

Now the masculine anthropomorphisms of God in scripture are definitely more numerous, but the point is that by using both we can see that God is neither man nor woman (he is in fact Spirit). This is why I had no problem with God the Father being portrayed as a black woman, since portraying him as a man would have been equally "wrong". The image is culturally jarring and effectively demonstrates that God exists outside of our preconceived notions.

[53. farmer Tom said the following at 4:26 AM on Jun 20:]

53

Yes there are lots of spelling mistakes in my long post, I really did correct them, but for some unknown reason, the computer failed to save the changes.

The computer issues continue.

[54. Robin Sampson said the following at 5:39 AM on Jun 20:]

54

This is my first visit here. I disagree. The Shack encompasses forgiveness, faith, hope, trust, love, reliance on God, and hope is worth reading.

I just wrote a review on my blog.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:53 AM on Jun 20:]

55

BDB asks:

So, does studying a theology textbook violate "sola scriptura?" Why or why not?

Having read my share of theological texts, even by those theologians I don't particularly admire, I'd say the answer is no.

The premise of Sola Scriptura is that only the Scriptures are the authority in matters of faith and practice.

It's not that extrabiblical texts have no value; on the other hand, no matter how good those theologians may be, they just don't carry the authority of Scripture.

We tend to get into trouble when we start taking commentaries about Scripture--and that's what even the best theology texts are--and elevating them to the same level as Scripture itself.

Jesus had to confront that culture on an almost daily basis.

[56. ScottW said the following at 8:23 AM on Jun 20:]

56

Chin Wee #45

Yes! Wonderful post! I couldn't agree more.

That is the question I love the most: Why can't we have good doctrine AND good love? Why can't it be BOTH/AND, not EITHER/OR? If we really grasped what God has done for us in the death of Christ (good doctrine) then our love should no limits (good love, or orthopraxy for you theologians).

[57. Woz said the following at 8:28 AM on Jun 20:]

57

As it was touched on earlier, the problem isn't so much that this book is fiction, like say Chronicles of Narnia, where the person of Jesus if represented in an allegorical way by Aslan. The Shack, portrays God as God, not a lion. It is a fictional book about reality. The book gives actual words to this fictional representation of God, which is where the problems lay.

The book is not about a fictional, alternate universe of mythical creatures (i.e. Narnia) where there is a little but more freedom in the story telling because it is an allegory; but The Shack is a fictional story about this real universe, where the God of our real Bible comes and talks to the main character about real suffering and issues.

So the problem isn't so much that this is fiction, but that it's fiction trying to come up with a hypothetical real situation, and then putting words and concepts into the mouth of God, that are sometimes contrary to what our real scriptures reveal to us about the actual character and person of God.

People, christians and non-christians, will read this, and assume that (like Pilgrims Progress) the author is trying to communicate real truths from Scripture in a literary way. While this may or may not be the intention of the author, the inherent danger is still there. As someone said, literature has its purpose in trying to explain truth in a fresh way, so it is our duty as Christians, like the Bereans, to search the scriptures and compare this "truth" to what the bible says.

[58. Sam said the following at 8:29 AM on Jun 20:]

58

Whenever I read something like this, i cant help being reminded of the following quote:

"Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself." (Irenaeus of Lyons—2nd Century A.D.)

The whole problem with the concept of "eating the meat and spitting out the bones" is that too many immature and unwary christians will spiritually "choke" on the bones.

Lets speak plainly. The Shack is pure heresy and should be rejected. Yes, its fiction but so is Brian McLaren's New Kind of Christian. Fiction is being used merely as a device for the author to communicate his viewpoint. When an author writes a fiction work that includes theology, the mere fact that he uses fiction as a device does not relieve him of the responsibility as a Christian to defend the faith nor does it remove the accountablity of the consquences of false teaching.

I dont understand how people can not grasp the extent of God's love from the pages of the Bible where we learn how sinful we are as humans were deserving death for our sinfulness BUT yet in God's love, He sent Jesus to die in our place. No of us deserve heaven BUT yet, God's love and grace were shown and extended to us through the cross. It shouldnt take you reading the heretical The Shack to fully grasp God's love. Spend more time in your Bible and really reflect upon God's love as revealed to us in the Scriptures.

[59. farmer Tom said the following at 12:04 PM on Jun 20:]

59

#50. Leah said,

farmer Tom, why do you always have to be insulting of people when they've done nothing wrong? Annika was just confused and didn't understand something and you were rude; and then you went and said city people had "weak stomachs" and "thin skin"... it's simply uncalled for and definitely not loving.

Leah, I'm going to say this as lovingly as possible, you need a humor gland installed immediately.

I was very polite to Annika, nothing I said to her can be construed in any way as rude, mean, unkind or sarcastic.

On the other hand, fools who would negate The Truth of Scripture for the nebulous "love", are deserving of the scorn and ridicule they draw to themselves.

Ever heard of the "hick farmer", well we hick farmers have serious disdain for people who live in the city and believe that milk comes from the grocery store, not cows. That vegetables magically appear in the produce aisle, and that just cause you live in the country, your IQ is 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean.

So I make fun of city folks, can't you laugh at yourself, or does the truth hurt?

[60. Sarah P. said the following at 1:02 PM on Jun 20:]

60

Tom N., thank you so much for reviewing this book! Y'all who say The Shack is still worth reading, sure. I personally think it stinks in both truth and aesthetics, but that's my opinion. Tom is just giving the heads-up to be careful in the process of reading.

Farmer Tom (#43): The Trinity is indeed a total mystery, and I'll tell you why - so you have a yolk, a white, and a shell... but can you say they are each the whole egg in essence at the same time? God is three different Persons, but each one is also completely, entirely God. Whoa.

Personally, I think books like The Shack can be insidious. One of my Christian co-workers read it in her Bible study and said it was very interesting, so I asked to borrow it. I started to bog down from the writing halfway through, but that was enough for me to encounter some items that made me, shall we say, widen my eyes. And then when I asked my co-worker what she had thought, she said, "Oh. I knew something was a little off, but I just thought it was a good story."

I ran into a load of pain this last year, and it just wasn't enough for me to say, "God loves me." I had to know the whole shebang - God doesn't exist for my sake. He owns me and has a right to do whatever He wants with me because of His great justice and my terrible sin, and nonetheless He loves me, and He intends this for the deepest good of all, to shape me to be like Jesus.

[61. brx said the following at 5:56 PM on Jun 20:]

61

Samuel (#49),

I think we probably agree. My concern was more that you didn't specify "in general" they're better equipped. You conceded that error "does happen, but in the minority of cases." Let's keep in mind when dealing with percentatges and volume, a minority can still represent many thousands. I've seen some pastors intimidate people to prevent questions. I've seen some seminary professors teach what I think is rubbish. I've known a learned doctor to give a confident, but erroneous answer to a direct question from a patient. And I know engineers from good schools but whose work I would still inspect before trusting my safety to it. I think they all do well in their areas of expertise, but I also remember they're only people and still falible.

"I judge a man by what I see him do and not by what others tell me he does." - a quote I like from one C.S. Forrester's captain characters.

Of most importance I think, is that we should all strive to be like the Bereans and maintain personal discernment.

Grace & peace

[62. brx said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 20:]

62

Jo (#38); yep, that's what I meant. I agree with you about harsh condemnation. For people who have been traumatically abused by a wrong image of God or a father, it often takes a long time and a lot of people actually showing the love of God and Jesus to help undo those wrong images.

It seems a common problem is that we Christians get so caught up in our _own_ pride and insecurity that we often spend more time correcting with words instead of loving with action. Yes, there's some value in making provocative statements and posts to stimulate fruitful discussion and healthy debate and banter -- and the Boundless Blog is often one of those places. Still, I think we sometimes speak/write in a way that does not make people want to listen. This is a habit I'm still working to change. I'm not talking about the difficulty with hearing truth, but rather the manner in which we attempt to deliver.

One problem is beginning with an insult. For example "I can illustrate how absurdly insane that comment is..." Statements like that tend to make the listener shut off or shift into a defensive mode. Another common issue is 'shoulding' on a person after not first listening and asking questions to understand them. I get caught doing this often. An example of 'shoulding' that probably won't be taken well: "I don't understand how people can not grasp the extent of God's love from the pages of the Bible... ...It shouldn't take you reading the heretical The Shack to fully grasp God's love. Spend more time in your Bible and really reflect upon God's love as revealed to us in the Scriptures." The advice giver doesn't know these people nor understand them and that's often received as a lack of compassion.
[thanks for being good sports, Tom and Sam. like I said, I'm working on these issues myself. -and I thank saintly sisters for helping bring it to my attention.]

Farmer Tom (#43); re, the germ and pig illustration... I think I would have stuck with the yeast & bread. In my statement, I was hinting at 1 Cor 13.

Grace & peace

[63. Stephen Cathers said the following at 8:00 PM on Jun 20:]

63

While it appears there are heretical elements in the book (especially the idea that all 3 persons of the Trinity were incarnated), I'm not sure that the idea that Jesus relied upon the Father instead of his own divine nature is one of them. It seems to me that the author might merely be saying that, for example, when Jesus did miracles, he voluntarily did not rely on his own power (which he had) but rather trusted the Father and worked them by the power of the Spirit. This would seem to line up with the idea that "God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power." Not sure if the idea that he always did that is correct or not, but it doesn't seem heretical, nor does it require an essential inequality between Father and Son.

As for the idea that this is just fiction, so it shouldn't be criticized for theological error, that's a cop out. It reminds me of Ellen Degeneres talking about people who say really nasty things to you and then add "just kidding." In the same way, it hardly seems right to make all kinds of theological criticisms (or nasty generalizations about people) and then turn around and say "just fiction." If you don't agree, just imagine Papa teaching, instead of patripassionism, the idea that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. I've a feeling the people who are now defending it as "just fiction" wouldn't be so quick to rush to its defense.

[64. Debbie said the following at 9:02 AM on Jun 21:]

64

I haven't read The Shack, and like another reviewer, typically avoid Christian fiction. To be guided in truth, one really must take great care in choosing the source of ideas one puts into the mind. Paul writes passionately about the essential task of renewing the mind. The only thing that truly renews the mind is holy scripture and the attending Holy Spirit, our teacher. We are told to "guard the mind" as well. The mind is the battleground. So, why put into the mind anything that misrepresents truth, when it is truth that faithfully renews the mind?

For this reason, I am wearied by the appetite of so many for questionable books by people who have a flawed or incomplete view of God and truth. It's likely true that some may read a story like The Shack and gain insights that spark a pursuit of God. But, if truth is skewed, and they visit a church and hear authentic truth, what reaction is likely? Confusion. There are so many books in the market that are misleading people. So much confusion. Believers do God a disservice by contributing to it.

Books by or about the lives of Christians like Corrie Ten Boom, Brother Andrew and Jim Elliot inspire and tell of the power, love and sovereignty of God. The question of appetite is key. Why read The Shack, when one can read the Bible and hear directly from God? Why read it or others like it, when one can read a plethora of historical favorites? Postmodernism tempts us to reject the past or the traditional and embrace the "new" and untraditional. Examine your appetite. What are you hungry and thirsty for? God himself, or an image of God that suits the times? Is your appetite pure or self-serving?

If your appetite is for truth and God himself, it will lead you to the Bible, and commentary on biblical doctrine. I'd rather read Donald Barnhouse, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Vernon McGee and others who are able to faithfully expound on God's truth and His nature, than any novel. The Bible and these feed my soul.

We're all different. Some of us love fiction; just pick your fiction carefully. Picking well requires knowledge of truth and discernment that comes with it, which comes from reading and studying the Bible. How many posting comments here study the Bible? It is the surest path to intimacy with God, since it is His own revelation of Himself. I pray for hunger for the true God and the true Word for God's children. God has harsh words for those who seek another God than him, or who give lip service to Him while they seek a "form of godliness" rather than true godliness. The junk books about God are a distraction from seeking the real thing. The time is short. Use it well.

[65. Steve Laube said the following at 11:20 AM on Jun 21:]

65

Great post Tom! Always good to read your insights.

As for THE SHACK's popularity outside of "Internet-Land" Tami #7? For the last two weeks the book has been #1 on the New York Times bestseller list... Ever since it was announced that FaithWords (a division of Hachette, the fifth largest publisher in the world) had picked up the rights to the book, the NY Times has begun to acknowledge the sales reports. Previously they did not report the sales because it was perceived as being self-published, which wasn't entirely accurate because William Young did not publish the book, his friends did and formed Windblown Media.

In July FaithWords will print 500,000 copies and flood the market with the book.

[66. Tami said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 21:]

66

Steve (67) -- What's going on in the publishing world is a top-of-mind topic for me. I'm aware that The Shack is a bestseller and of its distribution story. And yet, the only discussion I've heard has been in the media (mostly via the Internet). My point was that I do not *personally* know anyone that is reading it or discussing it; therefore, I have not had or heard any conversations about the book aside from online. My friends and colleagues that pay attention to the NYT lists do not care about Christian fiction, and therefore would not discuss it. On the other hand, my Christian friends are not the types to be attracted to a book like The Shack in any event. Ergo, no discussions in "real life".

[67. Jo said the following at 2:46 PM on Jun 21:]

67

brx:
I agreed. We're so quick to get defensive when we think someone's theology is slightly askew, we forget there's a person behind that theology. 'Heresy' is such a powerful word. When I was a kid I developed this idea that if a non-Christian died who would have later accepted Jesus if they'd lived, God would let them into heaven. As my understanding grew, I learned this wasn't Biblical. I would have appreciated a gentle correction earlier on, but to be condemned as a heretic probably wouldn't have helped me progress along the path God had for me.

And I understand where you were going with the 'better to have right love than right doctrine' comment. Each will naturally feed into the other, but I think ideally they will develop in conjunction. Too much of either without the other will cause problems.

Debbie:
"Why read The Shack, when one can read the Bible and hear directly from God?"

Again, I haven't read The Shack, but as a general comment, why is it an either/or question? Nothing should replace the Bible. But we are creative people, and we have created and continue to create works of fiction and non-fiction, art, music, dance and drama that present Biblical truth in thousands of different ways. All of these are interpretations and personal responses and none are infallible, but many are useful, instructional, inspiring and enlightening to us in our walks with God.

Also remember that there are scores of people out there who will not touch a Bible, perhaps because of bad experiences of Christianity, or thinking it's irrelevant / way above their understanding, etc. Note, I am not saying these views are accurate, but that they are real perceptions that people have. Therefore to put nuggets of truth into less threatening 'accessible' formats is right and Godly, as signposts to the Bible.

After all, Jesus Himself taught in parables. An individual parable did not give a 'complete' picture of God, but just a small piece of the puzzle. If the story of the lost sheep had been published, no doubt the Pharisees would have been up in arms about how it didn't portray God's wrath but only his compassion. (Not calling you a Pharisee Tom, sorry!!)

Anyway this is getting long but a final point, no one has yet responded to Boston Matt's point in #18 - in 'The Last Battle', a character is saved who never acknowledged Aslan as King. Since it's an allegory of God's judgment, is C.S Lewis a heretic? Why or why not?

[68. Kyle said the following at 2:32 PM on Jun 22:]

68

In response to Jo's (#67) mention of Boston Matt's (#18) question of whether or not C.S. Lewis is a heretic, the answer is no, because C.S. Lewis did not write The Chronicles of Narnia as allegory. In his book "Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories," Lewis asserts that the stories began with images in his mind, not thoughts of wrapping Christianity in a package more palatable for children and the young at heart. Thus, his work in this series neither attempts to explain Christianity nor subvert the sovereignty of God.

I am interested in how Christians make the determination of what creative works are worthy of consumption, not just in works of fiction, but music, visual arts, poetry, and so on. I'd venture to say that many of us take in works which would be anathema to others, though they are not patently wrong things to consume. Paul wrote that all things are lawful but not expedient. I just wonder, are we basing our choices of media consumption upon what is expedient towards our spiritual growth and that of others, or is it merely a matter of personal choice and preference. I believe the thought (or lack thereof) put into our simple choices gives an indication of how we will handle more consequential decisions in our spiritual lives. These discussions seem to bring out many questions and few answers. Nonetheless, I am glad that forums like this exist which allow us to sharpen one another's perspectives through critical reflection.

[69. Phoebe said the following at 11:02 PM on Jun 22:]

69

"There are certainly theological missteps, but then again its a work of fiction and doesn't claim to be a theology textbook."

This is a thought that I think is dangerous. What about "It was just a little necking, but it wasn't sex."? We tend to think as we read. It is precisely those who are least on their guard, thinking "It's just fiction", who are probably most at risk.

As for the beauty of the human, sensitive portrayals of God, I have one question. Why was it necessary to so distort the scriptural depiction of God's being in order to make those points? Doesn't it say that those who love the stranger, prisoner, beggar, are acting with love to Jesus? Might we not also say they are acting LIKE Jesus? (Matt 25, Eph 5:1 -- Be imitators of God)

On this earth, the Lord gives us pictures of people who act with the love and wisdom of the Lord. This is how he chooses to speak to the people of the world: through his children. We also see the deeds of Jesus. His love and humanity are ALL SUFFICIENT. Are other fictional depictions of God necessary? They are not. The Incarnation of Christ is enough. The Presence of God through his children are part of that 'enough'. We can reflect the love, grace, and humanity of Jesus, in ways that are unique to ourselves. But a cross-bred, genetically modified image of God and humanity is not necessary.

That said, I do recognize the need for redemptive fiction that deals with the hardest of subjects. For those who would love to read fiction that shows Christ's redemptive love, even in the most difficult circumstances, I would recommend the beautiful stories of Penelope Wilcock in "The Hawk and the Dove.":

This book is beautiful in every respect. The stories are truly new -- by that I mean that there is absolutely nothing that is cliched or commonplace. The writing is crystalline and beautiful but also simple. But these are lesser things compared to the wonderful themes in this story. We come to understand that forgiveness, and reconciliation are excruciating and gut-wrenching, but among the most God-like deeds possible to mankind. We see humility in men who physically kneel in apology to those they have hurt. We see faith portrayed also as very difficult, but that God is ultimately always, always faithful.(I do not say that lightly: I don't know how God may someday test MY faith.) We see love that sacrifices for the good of others. I treasure this book up with "The Wise Woman" by George MacDonald and "Perelandra" by C.S. Lewis for the lessons it taught me and the beauty it showed me.

(from a review I wrote. The book is only $10 on Amazon. Buy it!)

[70. Nat said the following at 11:38 PM on Jun 22:]

70

I've noticed that many commentators have noted that the shack is fiction. Isn't fiction- or myth- a vehicle to express truths that are dry and or difficult to discuss directly? I seem to recall C.S. Lewis writing a great deal about it. Personally, I've found that I tend to absorb concepts and teachings far more readily through a narrative than I do through a treatise. And, to be honest, that has lead me into error at times- scripture has rescued me. If the fiction in question is impacting people, which the Shack is doing, and if it is teaching them false doctrine, which the Shack does, and if it denigrates the standard by which we judge right belief (the Bible), which the Shack also does; then we're in trouble, aren't we?
One more point, while I'm at it, why do we consider doctrine to be of such minor importance if Jesus and the Apostles- and the prophets and Moses- spent so much time teaching it?

[71. Sj DeWeese said the following at 7:03 AM on Jun 23:]

71

I loved the book and still do. It gained popularity because it was NORMAL people (not theologians) who read it and loved it too... and in turn did everything in their power to get the book into the hands of their loved ones (like I did). The week I bought 25 copies of it from Amazon.com for my peers was also the same week it went to #5 on the Amazon best seller list... so it's obvious others were doing the same thing. It's reminiscent of Blue Like Jazz in the nonthreatening arena and I would/ and have recommended it to all my college friends who are ready to walk away from God and faith.

[72. BD said the following at 10:52 AM on Jun 23:]

72

Not a single scripture reference in this article. Hmmm. That sounds dangerous to me. At least no one doubts that THE SHACK is a work of fiction.

THE SHACK has not even reached the status of "popular" yet. It has to reach critical mass to do that. The book has been so helpful that readers share it, recommend it and pass it around.

The biggest threat THE SHACK poses is to the religious of our day... in much the same way Jesus was a threat to the religious of His day.

[73. Tami said the following at 11:59 AM on Jun 23:]

73

BD (72) -- there are hyperlinks to Scripture references in the article... and yes, I would count something that's at the top of the NYT bestseller list as "popular".

I'm not trying to change your opinion; just pointing those two things out.

[74. Chris Pack said the following at 10:56 AM on Jun 24:]

74

All, I would encourage you to think for yourselves rather than letting this reviewer do the thinking for you. One of the major criticisms here - that God the Father appears to Mack as a black lady - fails to mention why Father chooses to do so, Mack's own abusive father. It also fails to mention that when Mack finally sees God the Father properly - is open to a relationship with a father - that God appears to him as such. The reviewer has God in a nice neat box here assuming that he would not do such a thing to reach out to us for relationship, but the God of Scripture that I see does everything, gives everything, to reach out to us for relationship. Also, this reviewer states, "Mack already understands that 'Papa' is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor," and this is completely incorrect. He understands that "Papa" is God based on the fact that his wife always refers to Father as "Papa" - it has nothing to do with his earthly father, which makes me question this reviewer's understanding of anything in the book as this is something referred to repeatedly throughout the work. The subject of God's judgement is not ignored, as this writer implies. Instead, it is dealt with in an entire chapter and explained in a way that I never dreamed, and especially deals with the subject of us making ourselves judges, rather than God being the judge. Perhaps this reviewer, who implies that Young's past failures skew his theology in this work, should take some of the book's thoughts in this area to heart. I believe this book does God's character no harm and to let someone tell you it does without investigating it for yourself is your choice, but a poor one if this is the review that you allow to do that. No work, not even Scripture itself can FULLY explain the glory of our God, so why put that on this book? Even Scripture limits itself by saying that all of the works of Christ could not be contained in books. It's a limited picture, albeit an infallible and inerrant one. It points us to Christ from beginning to end, not to a principle about Christ, and Young is attempting to do the same in this work. I thank him for sharing with us what the Lord has done in his life through much pain.

[75. tim said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 24:]

75

Okay here is an idea. How about we all buy 3-5 copies of the book and distribute them to some of our non-Christian friends (pausing for audible gasps...). Encourage them to read it and then we discuss it together with them. Discussing it in a way that is Christlike. I get weary when I read reviews that want to tear down the content and prove why "I am right" instead of embracing a (I believe) God-given opportunity to open a dialogue with someone. If i had an opportunity to talk about this book with a non-Christian, i would be so excited to be able to use it as a way to speak some of the same language. I feel so churchy sometimes and I just want to be able to "love as Christ did" and I feel like sometimes I can't get past all the catch phrases I was raised in the church to use. Oh Lord, use me in spite of myself, and if "The Shack" gives me a chance, help me to stay out of your way. Amen!!!

[76. Tom Neven said the following at 4:53 PM on Jun 24:]

76

Chris Pack (#74)

I never said the book ignores God's judgment. I said it gives a one-side picture of God, and a flawed one at that.

I also said that I would not go into great detail on the book's flaws, but as long as you've raised the subject, here's what "Papa" has to say about sin:

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”

That's only partially true, and the parts it leaves out are fatal to anyone who draws their understanding of Christianity from this book.

Yes, sin can be its own punishment, but that does not mean God does not also judge and punish sin. That is a major theme of Jesus' ministry (he warns of hell more than he promises heaven), and to ignore a major teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. To say that God doesn't want to judge sin is just plain wrong, and anyone putting their faith in the "God" of this book might be in for a big surprise.

I have no problem with someone's trying to artfully present the truths of Christianity in story form, but this book violates all the rules of good art. A primary rule of good storytelling is show, don't tell. Young does the exact opposite: it's all telling, no showing. I had to force myself to finish it.

Now consider what Tolkien did. If you want to illustrate sin's power to destroy, I'll go with Tolkien's Golum any day over the insipid, whiny, self-absorbed storytelling in this book.

[77. Tom Neven said the following at 4:56 PM on Jun 24:]

77

Tim (#75)

Would you teach someone chemistry by having him read a book full of erroneous information just so that you could develop a "dialogue" and then have to unteach all the wrong material?

I've never understood this willingness to tolerate error merely for the sake of drawing people to the faith. Is the truth so weak that it needs a lie to get people's interest?

[78. Samuel PG said the following at 6:25 PM on Jun 24:]

78

Tim,
I do not mean this in an antagonistic way, but hope that you can explain this to me. I also think that discussing a spiritual book is a good opportunity to reach out to nonChristian friends, but why would we buy nonChristians a books that teaches bad theology? If someone has already read it, I understand discussing it, but if we are going to buy someone a book to discuss why wouldn't we buy them one that accurately reflects Christian belief?

[79. Danielle said the following at 8:32 PM on Jun 24:]

79

I somehow missed the hype about this book's release, but it caught my eye in a Christian bookstore recently.

Thanks to this insightful and articulate review, I now know what it's all about and will probably be giving this book a miss. I appreciate your thoughts, well-put and ultimately bringing everything back to the truth. Thanks!

[80. Chris Pack said the following at 11:01 AM on Jun 25:]

80

Tim,

I realize that my post was harsh with you and for that I'm sorry. It is my own fallen-ness that causes me to want to defend so often.

I will not fall on my sword here. I am no theologian and have not claimed to be. I did not examine each statement against historical heresies. I did not take any one statement and assume that Young was building an entire theology of God on that statement, any more than I would do so with one statement in Scripture. What I did do is hear the heart of God in this book, woven as a thread through the entire work. I saw a God of relationship and redemption, rather than the God so often pushed today - one that cares so much about the correctness of our theologies. Hmmm - the more I know Him the more He blows my theologies away. I saw a God outside of the box that I so often put Him in. Yet, this book does not contain Him. It is not Him. No book can ever fully explain Him - only Jesus Christ has done so.

So, I will leave it be with this last thing...what the Lord Himself has said about the book...

http://www.windrumors.com/44/june-2008-letter-from-pastor-lawrence-rae/

Of course, whether or not you'll receive it depends on what you believe about our Lord I suppose. May He blow away all of our boxes.

Blessings,
Chris

[81. Chris Pack said the following at 11:10 AM on Jun 25:]

81

By the way, you did, for all practical purposes, say that the book ignores God's judgement, unless you meant something else by this statement...

"He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture, but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness and, ultimately, the final Judge."

[82. tim said the following at 12:05 PM on Jun 25:]

82

Tom (77) and Samuel (78)
A little dialogue...i like it. Let me ask you this. Do you not believe that God is big enough to meet someone where they are in their time of deepest need. Do I believe God is "a large, Black woman"? No! Do I believe God may make Godself appear to someone in a manner that sets them at perfect peace with who God is in order to help that person experience God's unbounded and amazing grace and peace...Absolutely, unequivocally YES!!!
I understand your need to make sure the theology is right. The fallacy in so many of these reviews is that everyone believes Young is writing a theological treatise. It is a work of fiction. A work of fiction! And if it can draw some people into a deeper discussion of who God is and how God wants to be in communion with us, then thank you William Young for being used by God to touch people.

And when it gets down to it, isn't the only truly important theological question we all will have to answer this one from John 21..."(name), do you love me?"

Thanks for your conversation gentlemen, I hope it can continue. And Samuel (78), i found nothing antagonistic in your question at all.
Grace and Peace.

[83. Jackie said the following at 4:37 PM on Jun 25:]

83

I'm reminded that the Pharisees and Sadducees were the most theologically correct groups of their time--and both missed their Messiah when he stood before them in the flesh. It was the prostitutes, tax collectors, fishermen, and revolutionaries who found the Messiah whom the theologians had missed, because these folks saw God offering them a relationship with himself, not a course in theology. I think that is the message of The Shack: God offers us an intimate, personal, loving relationship with himself. I, too, initially had a problem with the book's portrayal of God as a woman; but I realized that the author (I think) wants us to take God out of the anthropomorphic box we've put him in and to stretch our imaginations a bit in an effort to better understand this God who is so far beyond our understanding. Remember, Gen. 1:27 tells us, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Apparently a single gender is too limited to encompass our God's image. If you've not yet read The Shack, don't read it expecting it to match your theology; don't read it expecting it to be a course in theology; and don't read it expecting it to live up Eugene Peterson's glowing review comparing it to Pilgrim's Progress. It's a good book, but it's not that good. Instead, read it to challenge your theology. And above all, read it to remind yourself (or tell yourself for the first time) that God doesn't just have a set of rules he wants you to live by; he loves you, and he wants to have an intimate relationship with you. After that relationship is established and nurtured, and only then, the rules and theology will take care of themselves.

[84. Samuel PG said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 26:]

84

Jackie (83),
Thank you for your comments and the reminder that good theology does not a relationship make. With that said, however, I must fundamentally disagree with the bulk of your post. True, the Pharisees and the Sadducees had the best theology at the time and for the most part missed out on the Messiah. Does that really apply to contemporary Christian theologians, though? I believe it does not. A Christian theologian by definition has not missed out on the Messiah, or they would not be a Christian. Part of the problem with this comparison is that the Pharisees' problem was not a poor understanding of theology as it had been revealed up their point in history, but the refusal to accept the ultimate revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus came to live among them, and Jesus was and is perfect theology. We cannot compare Christian theologians to the Pharisees in that way, because there is no greater revelation of God than Jesus. We can expect no better theology to come than God's own Son. The right thing to learn by looking at the Pharisees is not that we always need to be open to new thoughts on God, but that we are to be focused on Christ.
I expect that someone will ask me if this means that I believe God no longer speaks to His people at all? I firmly believe that God still does (for instance, I remember the day where I simply knew that He had called me into vocational ministry), but this communication no longer reveals new doctrine or theology. If "God" speaks to me and tells me that all three persons of the Trinity were made incarnate together and all suffered on the cross, then I know that this is not the same God who inspired the Bible, as He cannot contradict Himself.
It sounds to me like there might also be a misunderstanding in that you think theology is the same thing as living by rules:
"And above all, read it to remind yourself (or tell yourself for the first time) that God doesn't just have a set of rules he wants you to live by; he loves you, and he wants to have an intimate relationship with you. After that relationship is established and nurtured, and only then, the rules and theology will take care of themselves."
Theology and rules God wants you to live by are not at all the same thing. Theology is the study of God, the quest for true and accurate knowledge about Who God has revealed Himself to be. You might not recognize it, but your firm belief that a relationship with God is what matters most, and not rules that we live by, is based in the theological position popularized by Martin Luther, that we are justified by grace and not by works. I believe that to be good theology, and it helps to highlight a point: if someone instead believed that they had to earn God's blessing through good works, they would cut themself off from a relationship with God. This would be a case of bad theology preventing the relationship that you rightly value. You see, theology is of immense importance.
Finally, you are undoubtedly correct that arrogance and pride can be fostered through theological study and that this can cause someone to miss out from meeting the Messiah. That is a definite danger and must be dealt with, but that is the fault of all humans' sinful tendency toward pride, and not just theologians.
I hope to hear your thoughts in response.

[85. Chris Pack said the following at 2:41 PM on Jun 26:]

85

Samuel (#84),

I feel that you make some valid points, however, it seems unwise to me to completely disagree with Jackie's thoughts here. Why? Well...let me ask you a question. Is a Christian theologian, simply by the fact that he is a Christian, incapable of walking in religious flesh, much the same as a Pharisee? As Paul made clear in more than one letter, there is flesh and there is Spirit. We may live by the Spirit, but it doesn't mean that we are also walking by the Spirit. Weren't the Corinthians living like "mere men" rather than "spiritual men" at times? A Christian theologian may have all of the right answers about God, but does that mean that we will see the fruit of love in his life? In fact, we might see quite the opposite. In short, being saved by Christ does not mean that it's impossible for me to miss Him, to choose a way other than His, in a moment. Again, I believe you make some valid points and bring some good food for thought. Hopefully this post encourages and stimulates you too - let us all be sharpened.

Chris

[86. Tom Neven said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 26:]

86

Jackie (#83)

No, the Pharisees and Saducees were not the most theologically correct of their time. They were the most religious, but that is not the same thing.

In fact, their theology was all wrong. In the example of the Pharisees, they had replaced most of the teaching of the Law with traditions that were put into place to "protect" the Law. In other words, they'd put a hedge around the Law, and they regarded any touching of the hedge as a transgressing of the Law itself. That is why Jesus denounced them for teaching tradition. It's also why they missed the Messiah.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not very "religious," but I do insist on good doctrine, as does Scripture itself in the numerous links I put in the original article, as also does the Apostle Paul who praised the Bereans (Acts 17) for not just taking his word for things but checking it against Scripture.

The "let's just establish a relationship and not worry too much about correct doctrine" can be found nowhere in Scripture. Even Jesus insisted that people judge rightly and not sin.

When you throw out Scripture and start playing fast and loose with what it teaches, all for the sake of "dialogue," you open yourself to all sorts of error. It is, in short, a make-it-up-as-you-go religion and not Christianity.

I will also address the "it's just fiction" argument several people have made in a future post.

[87. Tom Neven said the following at 2:58 PM on Jun 26:]

87

... oh, and a thought I forgot to make.

Why do people assume that anyone who insists on correct doctrine is automatically cold and unfeeling an unable to establish "relationships" and "dialogue"?

And why can't you be warm and giving and still teach correct doctrine?

It's a false dichotomy to insist on only one or the other.

[88. Samuel PG said the following at 3:22 PM on Jun 26:]

88

Chris Pack,
If in my post I sounded like I was saying that a Christian theologian does not sin or cannot live according to sinful patterns like all Christians can, I did not mean to. A Christian theologian is only different from all other Christians in vocation. My intended (though perhaps poorly presented) point was that a Christian theologian does not miss the Messiah in the same way that the Pharisees did. The primary problems for the Pharisees (but not for all of them, of course) was arrogance, pride, a fear of losing social importance, and a concept of works righteousness, not that their good theology prevented them from meeting the Messiah.
In response to your question, "A Christian theologian may have all of the right answers about God, but does that mean that we will see the fruit of love in his life?" The answer must be yes. If a theologian is a Christian theologian then he or she must be a Christian. A person cannot be a Christian and not exhibit the fruit of love in his or her life. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, and will be borne in anyone who has the Spirit. God bless.

[89. Chris Pack said the following at 4:09 PM on Jun 26:]

89

Tom,

I hear your heart in what you're saying...

I believe the issue here is that some folks, like myself, have been blessed by some things of God's character communicated in this book. Perhaps our relationships with the Lord have been impacted in a very positive manner. Mine has. And, perhaps we should have left it at that and never made an argument here.

Others, like yourself, seem to be more ready to throw the baby out with the bath water because you see inconsistencies with Scripture in parts (or perhaps all) of the book. I certainly don't believe this means you are cold, unfeeling, or incapable of relationship. Not sure others do either, though I confess I have not read every post here. In fact, I believe it shows your concern and love for believers, that you want them to walk in truth.

If I had to guess, I'd say you've been blessed or seen the Lord in ways you didn't expect in things of every day life, or even in entertainment that is not explicitly Christian? I certainly have, and I think that some of us have experienced that with "The Shack". It's not that we have elevated it to the place of "sound doctrine" or are putting it on the same level as Scripture, no more than you would every aspect of a movie that challenged you in a similar way, but maybe contained some questionable material. I don't think anyone here would do that. However, I think that we've somehow seen something of the character of God in "The Shack". That's not a value statement about us over you. For whatever reason we did. It also doesn't mean that we are deceived or incapable of discerning truth from error or any of that. We have the Spirit of God in us, same as you. We are equally capable in that as we all have that anointing from God if we are in Christ.

I think it's tough for us to read your review because we don't want folks to miss out on those aspects of the book that blessed us, that challenged us in our relationships with the Lord, and the influence of this organization will steer many away. Maybe that helps you understand where some of the positive comments about the book are coming from. I don't believe anyone is trying to overturn good theology here. I believe our hearts have been touched by something of God...that's all.

Chris

[90. Deanna said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 27:]

90

Tom,
I got this book to read, which came highly recommended by my brother, and was extremely disappointed. Many others, I know, loved this book, but I feel your review is dead-on. I actually had to push through it so hard, because there is so much that contradicts scripture. I realize this is a fiction book, and not scripture, but people I know were buying them up like candy, to pass out to their unbelieving friends, to try to entice them into believing in Christianity. Dangerous...and that's my problem. There are some people who can separate truth from untruth, but if you don't know the scriptures at all (maybe never read them), it's dangerous that this could easily become your view of God, which is in no way lines up with the Word, that we are judged by. Good job on the review, kudos to you!!!

[91. Ted Dean said the following at 6:16 PM on Jul 1:]

91

Tom,

I have read the book and like you, many friends came and told me enthusiastically to read it. I began to have trouble with the book even before Mack got to the shack simply because I do not like the context in the early chapters. Christian’s get enough of that type of exposure in the media, television and the movies. We don’t need it in our literature

Theology aside, it seems the book really is attempt of Paul Young to come to grips with his unfortunate experiences of life. Stepping back and evaluating the book as a whole, it seems that Paul has unfortunately made God into an image of his (Paul's) own creation. In a sense, he has made a simplistic graven image that answers all his question in the way author would like. It simply isn’t that way, God clearly gives us boundaries for our faith (biblical based doctrine) and we have no leeway to cross over into the uncharted territory of our imaginations. Simply saying it is fiction simply doesn’t make it OK.

[92. Jackie said the following at 7:15 PM on Jul 1:]

92

I stand corrected on two counts: (1) the Pharisees and Sadducees were not the most theologically correct groups of their time; and (2) after an intimate relationship is established with Jesus, the rules and theology will not automatically take care of themselves. However, the Pharisees and Sadducees each thought they were the most theologically correct groups of their time. Likewise, I like to think I'm the most theologically correct person around today, but I know I'm not; my theology (i.e. my knowledge about an infinite God) will always have room to grow. I shudder to think that I, too, could consider myself totally correct theologically, and then completely miss Jesus! My point is that we can think we're sound theologically, but we always have something more to learn about God. That's why I'm saying let The Shack (or perhaps another book, or a song, or whatever) cause you to step back and take a look at your theology, to see if it needs to grow some here and there. But definitely use the Bible as your only sure guide to correct rules and theology. They definitely will not take care of themselves apart from a study of the Bible.

[93. Samuel PG said the following at 1:10 PM on Jul 2:]

93

Jackie (92),
Thanks for that great post. You seem to have a very healthy perspective, which I know I can learn from.

[94. Harry said the following at 7:31 AM on Jul 3:]

94

I sort off said "What!!!" when I saw God was female. The whole idea is to get us out of our comfort zones and get rid of our preconceived ideas

I think you miss the point of the book. If we teach relationship with God instead of rules we will all be happier and less miserable. He was trying to show us we are accepted and to live as such. It has changed my life and given me victory that I have only dreamed of.
God in me and me in God WOW (John 16)

[95. clarence said the following at 6:15 PM on Jul 10:]

95

I haven't read the book. These comments are very telling though. I have my own story of Childhood introduction to sexual activity and the results of that. A few weeks after having received Christ I had an experience which caused me to lose my trust in God and his love for me. God changed me to see how He operates and how we must view Him in light of his word if we are going to have a victorious life in Christ. God operates by faith in His Word and what it says. Not in any expierence we have. God through Christ paid the price providing all we need to have victory, without faith it is impossible to please Him! God cannot respond to unbelief!

[96. Jenny said the following at 6:49 PM on Jul 10:]

96

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."--Philippians 1:18

[97. Iselchyresse said the following at 2:51 AM on Jul 11:]

97

How big is your God, that is God whom you serve?

Interestingly, many of the comments here reference "thinking outside the box". I would like to encourage that we consider "thinking outside the globe"/ What happens here on earth is not the ultimate. God is.

In respect to this, I agree that God can use a flawed book, person, or anything He would like to do whatsoever He wills. After all, He did use a donkey to get the attention of one man (bushes, parables, and sycamore trees are among other implements at His disposal to intersect and change lives when He wants to do so).

Our responsibility as Christians--also our great privilege-- is to love God, others and ourselves, and to teach these things to those who do not know them. The Shack is one resource, among thousands, to accomplish this. The book will enlarge and challenge the perspective of anyone who reads it.

Other resources for those who want to pump up the volume of their grey cells, or spiritual muscles, can visit oneplace.com and find access to hundreds of broadcasts, mp3s, articles--from many, sound theologians, and teachers.

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, where I was privileged to take a course entitled "Images of God in Fantasy Literature" (Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, Bunyan, and others were examined--all of whom received more than their fair share of criticism, critique, and bashing--take heart Mr. Young!) offers "Dimensions of the Faith ... a free online theological education program. The Ockenga Institute of Gordon-Conwell has taken seminary level courses and adapted them to a 'go at your own pace' distance learning program." Go to http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/dimensions/

Also Ligonier Ministries is also an excellent source of sound instruction (http://www.ligonier.org/).

For those who enjoy reading, and who want to examine anthropomorphism, biblical imagery which highlight the feminine qualities to God, and some challenging and engaging discussion on Christian women throughout history, are encouraged to read the writings of Dr. Catherine Clark-Kroeger and Dr. Aida Spenser, both New Testament scholars at the seminary.

Yes, pick up and read--then dialogue for after all iron does sharpen iron. Thanks for reading.

More later...

[98. Carrie T. said the following at 5:29 PM on Aug 6:]

98

"Mack already understands that "Papa" is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor."

This statement is not true. Yes, Mack has trust issues with God because of his abusive pastor father, however, Mack came to know God as "Papa" because his wife, Nan, refers to God as Papa. I see nothing wrong with this because God is our Abba Father. I just wanted to set some facts straight.

I just finished reading The Shack last night and really enjoyed it. Yes, there were a couple theologically troubling parts, but overall, I thought it was a beautiful example of God's love for His children and our free-will to push Him away. It reminds me of hearing a great sermon, one that is founded in Biblical truth but uses contemporary examples to make the points more relevant and relatable. This is what I feel The Shack does. I think fiction is a great medium to show God's love and truth in a new refreshing way. I also think that because the work is fiction it is easier to understand that Papa has to be in the form of a woman because of Mack's father issues and the fact that Missy's abductor was also an evil man. Later Papa is shown as a man, which I believe proves that the author doesn't believe God is a woman (meaning he doesn't believe in goddess worship). God has always shown himself in many ways and will always make Himself known to His children in whatever way He has to in order to get their attention.

Aside from all of the threaded disagreements, thank you for posting about The Shack in general, because it always important to be challenged in our faith to continue growth with the Lord.

[99. Ted Slater said the following at 6:33 PM on Aug 6:]

99

Carrie T, you wrote, "God has always shown himself in many ways and will always make Himself known to His children in whatever way He has to in order to get their attention."

Can you provide some examples, specifically examples of where God presents Himself as something other than lofty and fearsome?

[100. Carrie T. said the following at 7:39 PM on Aug 6:]

100

Ted, thanks for writing! I think that in the Bible God does show Himself in “lofty and fearsome” ways, such as the burning bush. What I meant by my statement is that the Lord shows Himself not so often physically these days, but in smaller ways. He is a God of details in that way. The Holy Spirit influences believers and, in some cases, non-believers intuitively. The Lord also works through His Word, in church, through worship music, and within relationships (which "The Shack" actually mentions a lot, although I did not discover this truth from The Shack, just to be clear).
I think God as an individual (for lack of a better word, since the Trinity is complicated!) is lofty and fearsome, in the best sense possible. But I think Jesus is an example of God making Himself known in other, more relational ways, and I think the Holy Spirit works intuitively and actively in our society, as well, to make God known. I guess I am learning that this is the complicated aspect of the Trinity, all three aspects work together to show the power and mercy of God in different ways to different people.
I have just always been taught, and have learned through personal experience, that God can not be limited. He works in miraculous ways daily to reach people in a way that will get their attention and bring them to Him, whether that is through circumstances, people, church, the Bible, etc.
I’m not sure if I even answered your question, though!