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

[101. Texas Craig said the following at 8:31 PM on Aug 6:]

101

Ted (#99) - To answer your question, how about 1 Kings 19:12 when He appeared to Elijah in a "gentle whisper."

Or what about when He wrestled with Jacob In Genesis 32, and Jacob was not overcome. There, God took the form of a simple man, who did not physically overcome Jacob.

Those are just the first two that come to mind, but there are surely others.

[102. Ted Slater said the following at 11:49 PM on Aug 6:]

102

Thanks, Texas Craig, for the comment.

I need to disagree with your observations. The Lord didn't "appear" to Elijah in a gentle whisper. The Lord communicated to Elijah in a gentle whisper.

Regarding Jacob, I'm not sure how to make sense of that situation. It seems that the person Jacob wrestled with was an angel, sent by God, and not an incarnation of God Himself. Jacob seemed to think it was "God," but the context indicates that the person was merely sent by God.

I'll have to defer to those who better understand Hebrew and the OT. The thing is, even if this person is God, He is not a jolly woman, but a fearsome Person to be reckoned with.

[103. Leah said the following at 12:22 AM on Aug 7:]

103

Carrie T- do you really believe we have the free will to push God away?

(It's just that it sounded like you were claiming that was a truth proclaimed by "The Shack").

[104. Jo said the following at 12:37 AM on Aug 7:]

104

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

Do you mean aside from Jesus? Because Jesus is presented as shepherd, counseller, etc.

God the Father is often presented as a great King - but at the same time we are encouraged to call Him 'Abba' or 'Daddy'. Clearly there are fearsome aspects to God and we should never lose them - but at the same time, through Jesus we have 'child rights'. He is the King, but He is also our 'Papa'. He has freely invited us to enter into His throne room and have a father-child relationship with Him.

Now that certainly should not be confused with an equal relationship. The father is always in charge. But His authority isn't lost when the child takes such liberties as to bounce onto the father's lap. A servant would never be allowed to do such a thing, but the father-child relationship is one based on love, not fear.

[105. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:26 AM on Aug 7:]

105

Ted (#102),

There's been some thought regarding Jacob's contender that he was actually Jesus...

But there you have it. "When has God ever presented himself as anything but lofty and fearsome?"

when God became man, of course...when he humbled himself and died for us =p

of course, I'm pretty certain you were asking about God the Father rather than ANY form of God, right?

[106. Texas Craig said the following at 8:41 AM on Aug 7:]

106

Ted (#102):

No disagreement with you. You are right in that the gentle whisper was not literally an appearance. I should have used the word you used in your inquiry - "presented." I would think it fair to say that God "presented" himself in the gentle whisper, because the words right before that say that God was not "in" the fire, nor "in" the wind, nor "in" the earthquake. But, He spoke through the gentle whisper.

Ultimately, though, it is a non-issue because we both would agree that God has never presented Himself as a jolly woman in the scripture. But, I do think He has presented Himself in different ways at different times. Hebrews 1:1. Not all of those instances struck fear in the heart of the listener.

Having said that, I also believe that we could not possibly truly look upon the full glory of God without utter fear and trembling (if not death), which is why God would not even show Himself fully to Moses, but only let Him look upon "his back." Exodus 33:20-23.

So, any manifestation of God's appearance will not truly be the fullness of God. As such, it seems to make logical sense that God could choose all kinds of forms to show Himself to mankind. However, personally, I would be hesitant to use any descriptive form for God that is not simply intended to be a metaphor or analogy. I think this metaphorical use is what was intended in The Shack, but I also understand why it makes some uncomfortable.

I have the same discomfort when I hear teachers or pastors say things like "this is what God meant by this passage of the Bible" or "This is what God was saying here." Ultimately, the problem with those examples, and with what The Shack does, is that it presumes to know something about God that cannot be known, and it does so in perhaps a too cavalier fashion.

Let us all approach God with reverence and fear, while at the same time lovingly calling Him "Father".

[107. Texas Craig said the following at 9:33 AM on Aug 7:]

107

Leah (#103):

Your use of the word "really" in your sentence implies a bit of incredulity that someone could believe that we have the capacity to push God away. As someone who is not in the reformed camp, I do believe we have the free will to push God away. But, we have such free will only because He has chosen to give it to us. It is like my decision to let my children make choices every day, even though I could force the choice if I really wanted to use my strength to overcome them.

Now, I recognize that those in the reformed/Calvinist camp will disagree with me, and I am not attempting to start a theological argument. Rather, I just wanted to make it clear that the belief that we can push God away should not be viewed with surprise - it is held by those who believe in free will (namely most people who are not Calvinist/Reformed).

[108. Sylvia said the following at 10:20 AM on Aug 7:]

108

in #92 Jackie said "However, the Pharisees and Sadducees each thought they were the most theologically correct groups of their time. "

I think this still sidesteps what was really going on here.

The underlying thesis of this and the former statements is that the struggle for perfect doctrine will interfere with the potential for a close relationship with God, and that the Pharisees exemplified this in that they diligently studied the law and yet were unable to properly respond to the Son of God.

What I seen in the text is that SIN came between these teachers of the law and a relationship with God.

Jesus called them hypocrites. They did what prayed publicly and justified themselves through their meticulous tithing, but their hearts were wicked and they ignored the aspects of the law that did not benefit them politically. We see evidence of their sinfulness (according to the law, which they knew)over and over again. They were envious of Jesus and tried to entrap Him. They broke the law when they brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus without bringing the man also. Jesus arrest and trial were both performed under illegal conditions. These men cherry picked from the law to try to maintain their power. Far from being devoted to sound doctrine, they ignored justice, mercy and faith which were present throughout their scriptures.

The pharisees were sinners who thought they could hide behind the law while they plotted to kill the Son of God. Scripture makes this clear. These were not men who were earnestly seeking out sound doctrine and in so doing mistakenly understood that they were supposed to kill Jesus.

Sound doctrine is not the same thing as a relationship with God, but the quest for truly sound doctrine can only flow from a love for God and a desire to please Him and to know Him more. Surely a man may learn a lot of theology that he may satisfy his flesh by using it where he likes, but in such a case, his sin is the issue, not his doctrine. It is his focus on himself that is vile, not his focus on correct doctrine.

Most of the people who are objecting to the contents of "The Shack" are doing so because they care about a right understanding of God's revelation. I don't believe that there is a single thing inherent in a sincere desire for sound doctrine that will cause a person to miss anything that God wants to reveal to them. I believe that any comparison of the Pharisees and Sadducees to people who sincerely argue against troublesome doctrine is flawed in that it misdiagnoses the root problem in the former.

[109. Carrie T. said the following at 12:45 PM on Aug 7:]

109

Leah (#103),
What I was trying to say in my original post (which I think, re-reading it, that the sentence was a bit unclear) is that one of the reasons I enjoyed reading “The Shack” is because it was about God's love for all His children, but it also continually mentioned our free-will to choose to accept the Lord and follow His will. This is what I should have made clear when I said "I thought it was a beautiful example of God's love for His children and our free-will to push Him away." I am always comforted to know that the Lord never forces us to choose Him. He gives us the choice to pursue a relationship with Him all on our own, and although that can be frustrating or painful, it is also beautiful that the Lord never forces relationships. He wants us to want to follow Him because we want to.
So, I guess in answer to your question, "do you really believe we have the free will to push God away?" I think that we do have free-will to "push God away" or, in other terms, the free will to choose to ignore the Lord and live in denial of Him. Non-Christians prove this to be true on a daily basis. If we didn't have free-will - the option to not follow Christ - then we would all be with the Lord right now in perfect.

[110. Keri said the following at 1:40 PM on Aug 7:]

110

I really am tired of using the term "putting God in a box." Yes, I absolutely believe that God is sovereign and cannot be limited, but He has spelled out His character and attributes in His Word, the bible. It is not "putting God in a box" to believe what He Himself has told us! God does not contradict His holy book- when novels such as the Shack subtly present heresies with an emotional story line that immediately catches our attention, it is not to open our eyes to new truths. It is to get us to believe lies- whether or not William Young meant for that to happen, I don't know. But brothers and sisters, we have an enemy and he is very interested in deceiving us. Christians, stop reading books like the Shack looking for fulfillment in places other than Jesus! Scripture is enough- and if the heresies presented in this book aren't jumping off the page as you read them, then please, read Matthew 24 and be encouraged to increase your study of the bible.

[111. Ted Slater said the following at 1:51 PM on Aug 7:]

111

We published an article this morning by Gary Thomas, "God's Not the Defendant," that further explores some of the problems with this book.

[112. Jo said the following at 3:08 PM on Aug 7:]

112

Whoa, I just read that article and I agreed with him right up until he suggested that a Christians should never question God. He dismisses the examples of Job as 'impertinent' and the psalms as irrelevant because they were written before Jesus, and now we should have no cause to ever question because we have the Holy Spirit? Sorry, but that's just completely wrong. How is it possible or even desirable to live in the real world *without* ever questioning?

[113. Texas Craig said the following at 3:24 PM on Aug 7:]

113

Jo (#112):

I agree with you. The idea that we should not question God is very troubling to me. The Scripture is filled with people who question God. To me, the issue is not whether we question God, but whether we are willing to live with what He tells us (or chooses not to tell us).

A humble questioning of God is simply, in my opinion, a desire to grow in our knowledge of God and His truth. Sure, if we are doing it for our own beenfit to puff ourselves up, then it is wrong. But, if we do it out of a desire to know God more and to better follow Him, then that is glorifying to God. Moreover, I think a healthy questioning of God in a desire to learn more helps us when we share God's truth with unbelievers.

So, for me, I will continue desiring to learn and question more about what God would have me to learn. But, I will also always acknowlegde that God is God, and I am not. Therefore, I must be willing to accept if I do not like the answer or if I get no answer at all.

[114. Ted Slater said the following at 4:16 PM on Aug 7:]

114

Jo -- are we reading the same article? The author doesn't say "don't ask God questions." He says that we should be cautious about our attitude when asking Him questions, and should be content if He chooses to provide no answers. The author goes on to say that Jesus' incarnation has changed a few things, including how we may interact with the Creator.

"Healthy questioning" is fine, of course. Demanding that God answer is not fine.

[115. Jo said the following at 1:08 AM on Aug 8:]

115

But what is 'healthy' questioning? The article doesn't come right out and say that questioning is always wrong, but he does say:

"How can one of God's children truly experience all this [forgiveness etc] and even dare to ask God to account for Himself?"

He also says that Job asked his questions 'in an impertinent manner', which I don't think is true. God praises and rewards Job at the end of the book for his faithfulness. I think Job shows us exactly how we *should* respond to suffering, not how we shouldn't.

I also disagree with this:

"It is also very significant that you don't find the writers of the New Testament voicing these same questions." (He goes on to say that our relationship with Christ 'supersedes many of these questions'.)

I think Job and Psalms give us great examples of the right response to suffering - you bring it into the presence of God. You don't deny it, or try to talk yourself out of it, or invent your own answers (he's right about that), or run away from God - you give Him all your emotions and questions in the best way that you can, which a lot of the time may well be 'impertinent'. I think that's infinitely better than the only alternative, which is having a less than authentic relationship with God, and a less than authentic faith.

[116. alex said the following at 1:25 AM on Aug 8:]

116

There is all this talk of anthropomorhpizing God as a man in The Shack, but I really don't think that was what the author intended. It seems he meant to portray characteristics of God (such as someone who listens, who is patient, someone who is a good communicator, etc.) that is not commonly found in men and so used a different character. I think there is a lot of validity to the author choosing a different character than a white 30 something man with long hair and a robe. No simpleton should expect any human work to perfectly portray God, and they most certainly should not expect human form to have any validity unless one is talking about the actual body of Christ, because God is Spirit. Of course, Christians anthropomorphize God as a man all the time, especially as it relates to marriage, an no one says anything about that, so I'm a little disinclined to agree with your talk of theological incorrectness. Nothing is theologically perfect except theology and oh wait...that's not Scripture.

[117. Ted Slater said the following at 9:45 AM on Aug 8:]

117

Jo, the choice isn't between asking God questions and lacking authenticity. That's a false dilemma.

You can both ask God questions *and* do so in an appropriate way. Or you can ask God questions *and* do so with antagonistic, accusatory motives.

The first is fine, as author Gary Thomas clearly says. The second is where the problem lies.

alex, you wrote that "Christians anthropomorphize God as a man all the time, especially as it relates to marriage...." Can you explain that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Of course the Father has never been a man, though Jesus has been.

Strange, the bitterness toward systematic theology (aka "the study of God")....

[118. Jo said the following at 10:45 AM on Aug 8:]

118

Ted,

I agree with you that we should question God in a reverent way (a la Psalms and Job), rather than an accusatory way (a la unbelievers). But to me, the article didn't seem to say that.

The author's point, particularly in the parts I quoted, seemed to be that it's better to simply accept the mystery of God without asking questions. Even his opening quote from Augustine suggests that. He implied that books like Job and Psalms were absent from the NT because questioning God in those ways is no longer really necessary.

You obviously think I'm reading too much into the article, perhaps you're right, but I do think it leaves itself open to that interpretation.

Also, you say, "The choice isn't between asking God questions and lacking authenticity. That's a false dilemma."

I don't think it is. I think at some point in our lives we're all going to feel confused, angry, upset, doubting, lost, afraid. Either we bring our emotions and questions to God in the best way that we can, or our relationship with Him lacks honesty.

I agree with you completely that we can't demand answers from Him. But questioning is at times an integral part of the relationship, I think. And I would also suggest that those who do dare to question God when they need to are probably more likely to keep going in the faith than those who keep their questions hidden from Him.

[119. Jo said the following at 10:46 AM on Aug 8:]

119

Perhaps a post on the topic of questioning God is in order? :P

[120. Tami said the following at 11:21 AM on Aug 8:]

120

When I read Gary Thomas's article, I got the sense that he was referring to placing God on the defensive.

I went back and re-read the part where he talked about the NT writers not showing this pattern of questioning. I agree with him in that it is certainly *notable* that these books don't ask these types of questions, and I certainly agree that much of that has to do with Jesus' arrival on the scene, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in believers' lives. However... I *also* think it has to do with the literary form in which those books were written. Most of the NT is epistolary -- instructions from the apostles regarding how to live out the Christian faith. On the other hand... I do see the questioning in the *gospels*; Jesus Himself asks, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Of course, this is not said in an accusatory manner.

The narrative and poetic forms of many of the books of the Hebrew scripture lend themselves to more emotional expression, and that includes searching questions. However, it's notable that these questions *don't* show up in prophecy, or in the books of the Law.

To draw a rough analogy, I guess I would conclude that our questions are more dramatic and narrative; more like learning truth through a novel. Whereas, God's instructions for our lives must be written in an instructional manner, and therefore, wouldn't be as full of searching questions.

[121. Texas Craig said the following at 9:47 PM on Aug 9:]

121

Ted (#117):

In regard to your perception about Alex's antagonism toward systematic theology, I can understand that somewhat. While Alex may or may not have such antagonism, I myself have wrestled with it at times. It is not so much that I am antagonistic toward truth, but rather I am concerned at times that we value "theology" too much.

First, let me say I value scripture as our highest authority. I have led many bible study groups and have taught a class entitled "Introduction to the Bible." I love to study God's word and it is my plumb line. But, I also have come to see that it is easy to fall into a trap of valuing God's word above God's people.

In fact, God's word expresses a similar concern in 1 Corinthians where it says, "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." The two are not mutually exclusive, but it certainly is possible to value knowledge above people, and that is tragic, in my opinion, because God has told us that loving Him and loving people are the two things we are commanded to do to fulfill the whole law. Like Jesus said, "By this all men shall know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

So, I dislike the term "theology." Rather, I prefer the term "truth." I desire to know truth because, in so doing, it shall set me free. Free to love God and love my neighbor as myself. And, as we know, Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." So, if we know Jesus, we know truth--even if we do not know theology.

I am thankful that we serve a God who teaches us truth by His Spirit. Truly, He uses scripture to show us that truth, but it does not have to come through "systematic theology," in the way that term is understood by many teachers and theologians today. Good thing, since for much more than 1,000 years after Christ, much of the scripture was not even accessible to people!

Peace and grace!

[122. ray stone said the following at 8:53 PM on Aug 10:]

122

I browsed the pages of The Shack and ended up reading about three and a half chapters, plus the ending. Voom! Powerful. Despite some awkward sentencing and obivous theological loopholes, the book is creatively absorbing. Clearly is does not line up one hundred percent with scripture (no book does), but this is why it is FICTION. Does it dishonors God? I think not. Is is leaven and heresy? That is debatable. It simply is what it is. Let the reader beware. An equally intriguing and controversial work is A Step Into Deliverance by T. Pugh. It is a riveting autobiography about a pastor's amazing journey down the road to the deliverance ministry. It's a real page-turner

[123. bonnie said the following at 6:04 PM on Aug 11:]

123

I have read the book twice. I had never heard of it, just picked it up a little over a week ago. I approached it as a fictional book. The story was kind of unusual, but interesting. It was really a feel good view of God. I did not think about the theological aspect until I got cross looks from some people. Then I looked deeper into what was said. Yes some parts are questionable. If you are well versed in theology then it is questionable to you. But for someone who knows God a little it is good to get someone to look deeper into scripture. Like the Bereans, they read the scriptures to see that these things were so. And so anyone who reads it should also search the scriptures and see if these things are so. It would be foolish for anyone to read a fictional book and take it as truth in any form.

[124. tony said the following at 7:18 PM on Aug 15:]

124

I think the book misses on many counts. However, I find that many small statements by the characters reveal profound truths about God. These small statements could be unpacked in entire studies. Often these are obstacles to those who do not know God. I think the book admirably tackles the issue of blaming God for evil. It shines a light in the dark corner of an unbeliever's belief system. I believe there is an opportunity this book presents for talking about this obstacle of evil and suffering. It helps establish that God is not to blame for evil, He will have the final say and He is good all the time. It establishes that the fall is the source of our sin. It helps point out that it is not our "sins" but rather our "sin" that separates us from God. Sure it misses on the inerrant truth of Scripture. But - if you are a follower of Christ it's time to step up and do your job with some friends who I can guarantee have read this book and are waiting for an authentic believer to help them make sense of it (and more importantly help them find Truth).

[125. Mario Alejandre said the following at 9:28 AM on Sep 5:]

125

Interesting. Lot's of criticism, without, in my opinion, any understanding about what is being said. Of course, you probably don't have issues with Tolkien or Lewis, who so wonderfully capture the imagination and bring us to a place where we see things from a larger, non-denominational perspective. Some of the criticisms you make, are no different than what many do. Take something out of context and then inflate your own presuppositions. It's sad really. In this, Papa never claims to be female, but indeed Spirit. The purpose of this personal revelation is to show that Mack has a very wrong view of who God is and uses the antithesis of Mack's notions to undermine his pre-conceived notions. One recommended post also said that Young's portrayal of the trinity was tritheistic. Again, a mistake. The dialogue in this novel stressed that they are one. Did it create a sense of mystery? Sure it did. But make no mistake, the trinity is the most complex of subjects, and I think Young goes a long way to capturing the completeness in relationship God has with himself prior to any act of creation.

Finally, it is a work of fiction! It is intended to stir the mind to thinking and reflection. Often times we attack these types of books as being a new epistle for our theological understanding. Our attacks often show that we are biased towards a worldview that, even though we claim is a full expression of God's truth, does so at the expense of our creative and relational tendencies that often get suppressed or challenged by list-driven peoples. That is sad.

I don't think Young intended to create such a theological uproar. He just wanted to teach his kids about God and invited us in this journey. What should we think his kids will make of his brothers and sisters getting on his case because some argue his "system" of thought isn't right? I'm hoping the dialogue encourages them to there knees and into scripture to "converse" with God and others.

Neven's title, "Ramshackle theology" says it all. It's my hope that his theology is complete and can provide a perfect understanding of the nature of who God is and his chief characteristic, love. WIth that in mind, how then does this intersect with the reality that we all face in this life. I'm sure the author's own espoused theology (whose propositions, by the way, I am sure I would probably agree with) never leaves anyone with an incomplete or false image of who God is.

If our ideas of God are incomplete at best, then I think we should be more gracious in a fictional, imaginative expression of relationship God has with Himself and desires to have with us. Even if that story means we have to examine our own pre-conceived understandings of who God is.

[126. Trafford Brown said the following at 1:00 PM on Sep 8:]

126

At the very least I think it behooves believers to take any literature, especially which espouses Christian theology and/or thought, with a grain of salt and discernment; that is, read between the lines. If it's claptrap, it will become apparent. If it has some worth, it will remain a part of the mainstream, orthodox church as a whole for some time. Consider CS Lewis and Tolkien.

Also, consider the likes of the Prayer of Jabez and The Purpose Driven Life. I think that when a work by any Christian quickly soars to the top and is promoted by Christian and secular media with little critique of the questionable parts, we need to take a step back as a Church and as individual Christians.

I haven't read the book yet, but from everything I'm reading about it, I'll be even more discerning if I ever do read it.

I find it quite troubling when Christians latch on to any new major literary work as "the" thing, when they're more often then not, incomplete and when one ascribes too much to them, easily falls into the heresies that those who've critiqued the book point out about the book in the first place.

Too many Christians jumping on bandwagons with little spiritual discernment, wisdom or knowledge.

Be a critical reader, not a gullible one. If a book is merely sating your emotions, especially one that's discussing a lot of theological points, it's time to reassess how you're reading and why.

[127. Wolf RUTTO said the following at 7:20 PM on Sep 10:]

127

William P. Young’s much discussed book, “The Shack”, is interesting for a reason that does not seem to have been discussed so far: It turns into exactly the opposite direction of former attempts at dealing with an age-old question (called “Theodizee” by philosophers since Leibniz, 1710, but discussed already by Greek philosophers): how the idea of a personal, almighty, all-knowing, merciful, loving, and just GOD can be reconciled with the random, undeserved suffering of innocents in this world.
One could say, that this question has acquired new relevance with the development of world-wide news-media that keep us informed daily about wars, “ethnic cleansings”, natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis), slowly starving children … and – on the other hand - the unpunished demise of people like Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot, who died peacefully in their beds.
But an observant and compassionate person does not really need the news-media to ask questions: Each day, all around us there are children being born … with very unequal gifts and equipment for life: Some intelligent or gifted in some special field … others outright stupid from the very beginning, some beautiful and attractive … others ugly and unattractive, some attractive and intelligent … others ugly and stupid (some doubly blessed and some doubly cursed), some into loving and supportive families … others into broken homes or no homes at all. Where is God’s “justice” in that? (Just watch at a children’s fair a group of child-cripples - some of them blind - with pale and distorted little faces being pushed in wheelchairs by constantly changing “volunteers”. They might never find love, will never date, never compete, always depend on others…) In other words: It’s not only what we do to each other, that causes undeserved misery. The injustice starts right at our birth!
Or look on your way to work under the bridges where the homeless live! Why them? Why not you? Who would choose that lifestyle? …
You end up asking yourself: How is it possible, that - even nowadays! – a majority of the somewhat well-to-do (in the American Bible-belt supposedly over 80 %!) manages to “look the other way” and still believe in a just and loving God?! And most of these “believers” often quote the Bible and claim that they know it. Do they not see, that the Bible – especially the Old Testament – is full of cruelty, random killings, a primitive, tribal mentality that led us into wars and still causes human misery?
I can only think of two reasons for this kind of “blind belief”, that capacity of ignoring facts that anyone can observe, refusing to acknowledge and integrate it into their “Weltbild”:
One is mental conditioning: It is interesting to observe how many people – struck by disaster and really having no reason any longer to believe in a merciful and just God – hold on to their religious upbringing … just feeling helpless and desperate but not having enough energy left to rebel and question God’s “kindness” …
The other – and more important - one is our psychological need to believe in something that gives meaning to our lives and relieves us of the fear of death and its uncertainty. Exactly this need is being addressed by religion, any religion. And in combination with the first factor it makes us hold on desperately to those religions we happen to be brought up in … even in the face of contradicting observations.
Now – to return to what was stated in the first paragraph above – somewhat sophisticated Christian thinkers (and many theologians amongst them) tried to alleviate the dilemma outlined above by “depersonalizing” God, away from the threatening father-image (mainly of the Old Testament) to a more and more abstract concept of “creative power” and focusing on the figure of Jesus, who is supposed to symbolize love and forgiveness.
This, however, did not really solve the problem, how the cruelties and injustices in this world could be reconciled with an almighty, loving and JUST God, be it the father or the son (the Holy Ghost always remained kind of abstract). When asked, most theologians prefer not to comment on this. If pushed, they will answer, that it is the freedom of choice, misused, since Adam and Eve ate the apple, which created this horrible world. In other words: It is not God, who caused it to go so wrong, but US. HE only allowed it to happen … knowing very well how limited our capacities for the right insights and actions were/are …
This idea, in my mind, is almost as grotesquely wrong as entrusting a crocodile with building a computer … and simply does not fit with the idea of an all-knowing God.
W. P. Young does not seem to find a better answer in his book. But he completely differs from the lately prevailing depictions of God by transplanting the trinity into a US lower-middle-class horizon: God-father becomes a comfortable, friendly Afro-American woman (called “papa”), Jesus a somewhat Jewish looking wood-worker, and the Holy Ghost an Asian woman. They talk and act like a warm-hearted, down-to-earth American family (they cook and eat a lot and never fail to wash dishes … ;-). They definitely display a sense of humor. Only sometimes, when core-questions are touched on in their conversations with the narrator, they suddenly sound abstract, which often makes the meaning of their pronouncements difficult to understand.
But do they solve the main question of this book: Why God allowed the abduction, (most likely sexual) mistreatment, and finally murder of the narrator’s beloved little daughter to happen? I DON’T THINK SO!
The narrator is helped somewhat by his lengthy conversations with the “trinity” and in the end even “forgives” the killer of his daughter, though not very convincingly. The latter, most likely a deranged pervert beyond help, is caught in the end. But the basic question of this (otherwise well-written) book, the problem of Theodizee, is not being answered. It is rather washed away in a lot of talk about the love of God for us and us loving God and each other. It is basically sentimental, but its sentimentality is cleverly disguised behind common sense humor and the ordinariness of its protagonists.
Did we really expect an answer to the question that has tormented generations of believers (and especially non-believers)? I doubt it. The great echo this book has found is only indicative of our despair.

[128. Gaston Irby said the following at 1:36 PM on Sep 11:]

128

Tom,
Did you read a different book than I did. I can't but help that you also read the King James Version of the Bible feeling it to be the only inspired word of God. Before I read The Shack I had already met the Master, God who is truly femine and truly masculine. He is my all in all.
He welcomed me at the foot of the cross, where I saw the God of wrath and what that wrath and holiness cost His only begotten son. My righteousness is in Him and Him alone.
As far as Muslims, Jehovahs Witness, Baptist, Catholics, Buddist the book is clear that there is one way to the Father. We are too quick to criticize, judge and stand in our relegion to see the truth of this parable. The fruit of this awesome book is that souls are coming into the kingdom drawn by the Father.
When at 19 I was saved it wasn't the wrath of God that drew me, but His love for me, for this I am eternally grateful. His wrath was satisfied in the death of His Son, Jesus.
Glory!

[129. Cole said the following at 4:43 AM on Sep 13:]

129

Mr. Neven,

I just wanted to begin by saying that I so appreciate your desire to discern between heresy and truth. Indeed, as citizens of Heaven and children of God, it is our right and responsibility to always inquire of the Lord and ask for the spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17) that we might better know and more intimately love our Bridegroom Savior. I am truly grateful for the much-needed discernment with which you approach this book.

Also, I want to state that I believe the Bible is the complete and inspired Word of God. There is nothing "higher" or "more" than His Holy Word, nor is there anything truer. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, yes? And Jesus is the express image of the Father. So through the transitive property (and I hope my use of this geometric term here will be forgiven), when we read His Word, we are seeing the Father.

That was the prelude. Now I begin:

Unfortunately, I think as Christians living in the West, it is very easy for us to label ideas that we are not familiar with as "cultish" or "heresy" (this is not to say that those labels aren't always deserved and true), but because our God is an infinite and everlasting God (Is. 40: 28), I think it is imperative we approach these new ideas with a spirit of discernment, yes, but also with a heart of meekness and humility for there will always be aspects of our Lord we do not yet understand and we do not want to immediately label the unfamiliar as "wrong." (This does not mean I support the view that everyone should just be "open-minded" and cherry pick the truth. What is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right, and His Spirit reveals that to us through His Word which is which when we come before Him with a humble heart and ask.)

There were definitely moments in the book (and even some concepts) that I found troubling, so I am not at all advocating the book as 100% true (and to be honest, not even churches have 100% of the truth-only the His Holy Word, the Bible does, but there are still disputes in the modern church over the gift of tongues, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc.) However, there were some issues you had with certain portions of the book that I did not find troubling at all. These I would like to address:

1) When God the Father is first anthropomorphized as a woman, I don't think it was Young's intent to make our Lord a goddess ("Papa" exhibits all the actions of a tender father as opposed to a tender mother). The fact is, many people in my generation (I am not yet 20 years old) have been sexually abused by fathers, step fathers, uncles, and other men. It is true that our generation is "a fatherless generation," and many of these victims are unable to connect emotionally or spiritually to men after they have been abused. It is also true that our God is a tender Father and He woos His children tenderly (of course, this is not the only way He woos, but He is always gentle with the broken). He obviously knows the way some hearts are shut to male figures, so would it be strange for Him to come and touch those hearts in a way they won't shy away from at first? I think what Young was trying to say was that He is certainly our Father (that is why he stuck with the title "Papa," despite the outward appearance of the anthropomorphized Father), but for those who are unable to open the doors of their hearts to any male figure, He is able to enter through another door. This does not change His nature, His character, His heart--He just finds a new way in. And once Young's character learns to trust the Father's goodness, He is able to appear as a male without terrifying him. This sounds, to me, like a wise Father who knows His son's heart and the wounds and scars inside, and knows the best way to enter in. In this case, He moves kindly and tenderly so as not to frighten the hurting child. This does not at all sound like an idol a petulant human created and changes to fit his whims.

2) As an Asian-American, I recently became aware of the fact that Jesus is not Caucasian like the pretty Sunday School pictures told me He is, but that He is in fact, Middle-Eastern (I've always known He was Jewish, but I never considered the implications of His ethnicity until very recently). I had some difficulty accepting the fact that my Asian appearance is something my Bridegroom ordained and desired and now loves about me. No, he is not Asian in appearance Himself, but it was His good pleasure that I look this way with my small "almond" eyes (in truth, they're not almond-shaped at all, they're just tiny) and tawnier skin. I believe Young's decision to show our Lord as non-Caucasian races served two purposes: 1. to break our religious mold of who we think He is (and in this sentence, I am using the word "religious" in the Pharisaical sense, when the religious leaders of Jesus' day thought they had the infinite God all figured out), because if we will be honest with ourselves, most Christians in the West have shrunk God into a two-inch idol we place in the shelves of our minds and 2. to show non-Caucasian Christians in the Western World that when He sees His Church, His beloved Bride, He sees the image and reflection of His beauty in her--and this extends to every member of His Church, not regardless of his or her race, but including it.

3. Young does show the Lord as a judge. The beautiful Sophia judges Young's main character.

4. "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?"
-Young did not write this book to explain Christianity to unbelievers, he wrote it to share his heart with his children. But if Young had written this with the intent to convert, why not start with the Trinity? The fascinating way the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves us (John 17) and gives us His Holy Spirit because He wants to be with us even now, and not just when we get to heaven, seems like a fine place to start. In fact, I'm not sure how I would explain His outrageous love to another human being without sharing where it came from (the Godhead).

5. And of course Jesus was "before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together." I do not see how that contradicts the excerpt on Jesus' humanity. From the moment Jesus took on human flesh, he DID live out of His relationship with His Father. That is why He prayed and fasted and interceded. Because Jesus lived the way the Father intended all humans to live, out of perfect intimacy with the Father, Jesus could walk in the power of the Holy Spirit. I fail to see how this is subordinationism. Trusting the Father perfectly does not make Jesus "less" than the Father. Who could trust God perfectly other than the perfect God? You say yourself that "authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead" and explain nicely, "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." I agree wholeheartedly, and Young seems to as well.

5. Lastly, this is my own view and I can see how you came to your understanding. But this is what I thought Young was saying in the excerpt in which he talks about the Bible. Far from saying that the written Word of God is obsolete or useless, I thought Young was addressing the way many modern churches in the West now play the role of that which many of the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day played. Most of the Pharisees (and Sadducees, etc.) had a complete monopoly on the Scripture. And by this I mean that they studied and approached the Word of God with human knowledge instead of divine Inspiration (translation: asking the Holy Spirit--or back in that day, Yahweh--for a spirit of wisdom and revelation so that one might fully understand what He is saying. We as Christians know that a non-Christian's understanding of the Word and a Christian's understanding of the Word is completely different not because of intellect, but because the Holy Spirit reveals to us the deep things of the Father while the non-Christian must plod through incomprehensible words armed only with his natural mind and wisdom). They ended up missing the One they had been so eagerly waiting for. In a similar way, I think many Christians are afraid of the Holy Spirit's revelation because it can be risky (not because the Holy Spirit is faulty, but because there are many deceptive spirits that prey on our weaknesses and we are easily deceived humans), and have approached the Bible purely with the natural mind instead of asking the Spirit of God what He is saying through His Word. We can see in the Bible, that every moment belongs to a season when He is doing something very special. If we are not open to the leading of the Holy Spirit and try to navigate the seasons with our own human reasoning instead, we will miss what He is doing completely as the Pharisees did in Jesus' day.

Again, you and all of the Boundless staff have been a tremendous blessing to me and an invaluable source of wisdom. I sincerely thank the Lord for the work He is doing through you and the rest of the staff, and I personally thank you again for your desire to be discerning in all things. I know that He is happy with that desire! I pray that He would give us all grace upon grace to approach the deep things of the Lord with a spirit of humility, knowing that all wisdom and all knowledge comes from Him alone. Lord, we want to know You.

[130. Trevor said the following at 10:38 AM on Sep 18:]

130

For anyone arguing about this book as fiction and comparing it to CS Lewis there is one fatal flaw the author makes he has admitted in the the forward of the book as well as interviews that his goal once Jacbson agreed to publish was to share their idea of God with the world so if the idea was to share the biblical God to the world how come they left so much of him out. Can any one say Wolf is sheeps' clothing.

Also how come the only reason Wayne Jacobson would help with the book was if all the Universal Reconciliation theology was taken out first which is the theology that Jesus is the only way but all who die outside Christ will get to repent in Hell and the Lake of fire. He had this in the version he printed for his kids as a gift.

Trevor

[131. Laura said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 8:]

131

The problem with this book is that churches are handing it out to their own people, saying its a great, spiritual read when it is got so many missteps in it. Then in turn the 'christian' world goes nuts over it, unbelieves may pick it up and get more skewed views on God then what is already just out there in the world. I did not want to read this book, but after much controversy I decided to see what it was all about. I was mortified and saddened. Is it fiction? Yes, but sometimes people take works of fiction as truth, hold onto that as THE truth and become severly mislead.

[132. pencie said the following at 8:35 PM on Oct 13:]

132

This book is fantastical.I wish religion were so simple.This man has taken every beleif in christianity and made a mokery of it

[133. Val said the following at 12:50 PM on Oct 15:]

133

The question is, 'Is it necessary to toss away the Bible to portray a loving God?" Young seems to believe so. Anything that tosses away truth 'for a greater good' is not ... good.

[134. Emmie said the following at 10:00 PM on Oct 15:]

134

I am not one for hype, but I read "The Shack" because it was given to me by some friends. Although I found many things to be problematic in the book, let's just say that it's not the first time I haven't swallowed a book written by a Christian author whole.

However, just because I use discernment doesn't mean that I am willing to entirely dismiss "The Shack". Remember, "Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things and keep that which is good."

(1 Thessalonians 5)

Sounds like all complaints about Young's presentation of the trinity agree that the trinity is a word to express God's nature that neither he nor Christ ever employ in the Bible, and that theologians and common people alike get tongue tied when they try to explain it. Huh. Even the above sentence where I refer to God and Christ using separate pronouns could send people into dizzy spells about the separation of persons of the trinity, etc. etc.

Could it be that in each of our hearts, which are pondered by the Lord, we have our own way of digesting all that the Scriptures say into some kind of personal way of relating to God?

If people are going to read any type of Christian literature, I'd rather that people read about entering into a relationship with God than reading that if their income doesn't double within one year of becoming a believing Christian then they're just not saying their prayers right (or something like that).

"Prove all things and keep that which is good."

Please refer, my brothers and sisters, to Matthew 23.

Wouldn't a "weightier matter" (using the KJV language) that "The Shack" addresses be that even Christians have to deal with very deep suffering, and that God's faithfulness is the only thing that keeps us from fleeing from our faith at the slightest hint of discomfort?

And remember, God told Ezekiel -- to whom he spoke in wild and fantastic visions -- to tell Israel:

“Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign Lord. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live."

(Ezekiel 18:23)

And remember that verse right after John 3:16?

"God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him."

Is W.P. Young a prophet? I don't know. Will I take the same attitude to "prove all things" to his book as I take to every article here on Boundless, and every book and film discussed here?

You better believe it!

[135. Sheri said the following at 11:39 AM on Oct 20:]

135

I am quite disappointed to read some of the 'professional' reviews on this book, especially on the Focus on the Family website. I can respect a 'word of caution', however I often wonder how our human logic prevents us from seeing the Truth that Christ is trying to speak to us? (I am speaking to myself as much as anyone.)

God used this book in such a huge way to draw me closer to Himself, to change some of the wrong perceptions I have had of Him. I was raised in the church, the Alliance denomination to be exact. Since reading the book, I am falling more in love with Christ everyday because it has helped me understand Him more. The Trinity was explained in such a way that I understood to my human extent. (Will we ever truly understand until we get Home? I'm sure we won't.)

There are a couple of things that I really learned from it. The first being that the Trinity wants us to commune with them at a higher level than a lot of Christians do... with NO expectations. They JUST WANT ME. I don't have to be good enough, I don't have to follow a list of rules... I just have to be and accept the gift of grace and forgiveness. Which is the most difficult part. Believing that even through Christ, I am worthy to commune with them.

2. When Mack was placed behind the judge's desk and asked to put God on the stand and judge Him, that hit me hard. Who has NOT felt like doing that at least once?? Especially through the valleys of life? The author was trying to make a point. No where in the book did it say that we are judges of God. In this book, it was a method chosen to display how God worked in Mack's life out of love. God didn't have to, but then again, God didn't need to die on the cross either. But He did. He humbled Himself to this point because He loved us so much. This is how I view this book. God loved Mack so much that He was walking along side of Mack, confronting the anger and emotional pain and turmoil he was going through to help him understand what happened. The book is right. We can't ask for free will and expect God to step in just whenever things go wrong. It doesn't work that way at all. We are living in a fallen world. Bad things are going to happen.

3. I must admit that when I first read that God came as a big, black woman, I was a little taken back. But then I read when Papa explained to Mack that due to his past, if He had come as any other form, Mack would not have listened. It is true that we transfer our issues onto God. I makes me sad to read how people are getting their 'knickers in a knot' over this detail which is by no means minor. There is a much greater truth underlying here and most people are missing it because they simply choose not to get past the woman part. He is not saying that God is a woman. It is so comforting to me, that I serve a God that will be personal TO ME. He knows EXACTLY how to reach each person in a way in which they will respond and open to Him. In Numbers 22, God spoke through a donkey. With Moses, He used a burning bush. Is it really BEYOND God to come to someone with a horrible past such as Mack, in the FORM of a woman? I would suggest reading the book BRUCHKO and the Motilone Miracle where God used Bruce Olson to reach a stone-age Indian tribe in the rain forests. He related Himself to an ancient Motilone legend to show Himself to those people. Quite frankly, God can use whatever He wants and who are we to judge that? God is much bigger than we will ever be able to comprehend or understand. I strongly suggest we quit trying to put God in a box and start realizing that He is a whole lot bigger than we will ever be able to comprehend.

I am so grateful that I read this book. It helped me heal A LOT from issues in my own life and understand God better and be able to love Him more.

If I could have one challenge to the Christians that read this, stop getting so caught up in the details and look behind to what God is speaking to you about. I would LOVE to be able to sit down one on one with William Young. It would be an interesting conversation.

[136. IMO said the following at 12:46 PM on Oct 22:]

136

"I can respect a 'word of caution', however I often wonder how our human logic prevents us from seeing the Truth that Christ is trying to speak to us?"

Yes, Truth is spoken in the Bible. Start there.
Another book can't add or take away. If it does, it doesn't align with Scripture.

[137. Carlos said the following at 8:25 AM on Oct 28:]

137

Very interesting and different opinions/views about the Shack. I just finished the book and now you're really wanting to know whether I approve of it or not. What are you looking for here....a majority of opinions so that you can be safe about what you already know in your heart you think about the book? I'll assume you have read the book. If you haven't, I have a hard time reading anything you have to say about it. Why would you talk about something that you're not familiar with? What makes you believe that you are qualified to give an opinion of a book you haven't read based on what everybody else says about it? Or based on what you think the book says? What an immature idea. You let others think for yourself and then dare to give your "educated" opinion on the book you never read!?

Now, in my opinion like everybody else here has an opinion...this is not very difficult to understand. Are you looking for the true God of the Bible? Well, guess what...read THE BIBLE! Ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you as you read HIS word, that's it. Why would you be looking for HIM in a book that a flawed human wrote? Very immature of you to do so. Now, are you wanting to be uplifted by a FLAWED author who put down in words his personal experience of God as he understands it? Read The Shack and have fun doing it! Aren't we commanded by the Lord to examine all things and hold fast to what is good? Read 1 Thessalonians 5:21 in its context from verse 12 - 28.

It just makes me so sad to see so many of us taking down a fellow brother because his story doesn't perfectly line up with our understanding of scripture! Seems like many of us Christians believe that someone almost needs to have a theology degree to understand God! So my conclusion: Want to read a personal journey of a man written in a form of a FICTION novel? enjoy the book! Want to understand God for WHO HE SAYS HE IS? Man read HIS BOOK, THE BIBLE! Want to read a fellow Christian's opinion that tells you WHO HE THINKS GOD IS? OK read the novel but don't go looking for Eternal truths in there! see that it's a book of fiction?

So many are preoccupied that "books like these" are poisonous to Christianity...wow, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Please, read the Bible and YOU find for yourself the God of the Bible and stop looking around to see what other have to say. Do your own homework "work your own salvation" It is your responsibility, not any reviewers here to do it for you.

Find Christ for yourself like the author did and don't you dare to write it down, or you'll end up being criticized for not being theologically correct for the rest of your life!

[138. Lana said the following at 9:41 AM on Oct 28:]

138

I have just finished reading "The Shack", and enjoyed it very much. Is it perfest? No. But can it be used to bring people to God? Yes, I believe so. The comments on the portrayal of the Trinity are confusing to me. Did they not answer all at once on more than one occasion, thus showing the nature of th Trinity? They also had the conversation about one not being "in charge" b/c they were ONE. I am not a theologian...obviously. I am just someone who read this book, was very moved and was encouraged that my God wants more than anything a relationship with me, someone he is "especailly fond of". Isn't that a great thought?

[139. IMO said the following at 2:02 PM on Oct 28:]

139

For me, I'm just confused why some of you find these "revelations" about God in a FICTION book, not in the Bible.

For example, Lana says that, "I am just someone who read this book, was very moved and was encouraged that my God wants more than anything a relationship with me, someone he is "especailly fond of". Isn't that a great thought?"

And you can't get that in the Bible? The fact that God wants a relationship with you? That he is fond of you?

[140. Kathleen said the following at 10:35 PM on Nov 9:]

140

In the mist of dealing with an interim pastor at our church who turns out to be into the 'progressive christianity' movement I started to read this book. I had not heard anything about this book before picking it up. I started to wonder about it in the beginning when Nan referred to God as "Papa". I found that disrespectful. When I got to the part when Mack goes to the cabin and is met by the african american woman who is "God", I had enough. This is pretty dangerous stuff. It will suck people into wanting a relationship with a god that is not the God of Eternal Life.

Our world is full of people that want to make God into something He is not. They want to make it all about 'love'. There is so much more to God than love. I

[141. Katie H said the following at 2:26 AM on Nov 30:]

141

I have just finished reading "the shack", my in-laws gave it to me for my birthday. I must say I loved the visions the simplicity gave me and it came at a perfect time. I have been at a low for months and this renewed my sense of love and forgiveness. I have only read some comments and am sharing mine for me, I feel it was the right book for me to read. Others may need something else... I will be recommending it to others, no matter what others think. Each person has the CHOICE to read or not..

[142. Larry Bone said the following at 8:48 AM on Feb 11:]

142

The thing that concerns me within Christianity is when we try to compare everything said about God in terms of matching it up with scripture. No view or writing is perfect other than scripture, so nothing ever matches up entirely. God has been more than tolerant with our attempts to put Him into our framework of thought. Paul said even bad theology will sometimes bring people to Jesus Christ. And, believe me, there is plenty of "bad theology" being espoused every Sunday and even in theological schools every day.

"The Shack" certainly would not be even on the list to become a part of the "canon" of spiritual thought. I don't think that was the intent of the book. However, it does make people think when they read it. I read it and disagree theologically with most views portrayed. However, it is fiction, and I read it as such. It made me laugh, cry, think (heaven forbid), and genuinely want to look further into scripture to learn more about my God, my Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ, and my Holy Spirit. For that I am grateful. No theologian is going to like this book as a treatise on God. It wasn't written with the thought of become a part of theology school. Hopefully it causes readers to re-discover the Trinity and the truth in scripture!

[143. Joseph said the following at 9:54 PM on Feb 23:]

143

Tom,

I really do appreciate your post about the book and it's short comings of sound doctrine and the misunderstood use of theology. I have just started reading this book just a couple days ago. It is a very catchy and easy to read book, but it has so many things in it that cause me to just sit the book down, say a prayer, and read a little more. So many people that have read it at my church are saying, "it is such and awesome book, you must read it!" I am regrettably going to have to show them the false doctrines littered throughout the book and the falseness of the "god" portrayed throughout the books.

It is a very good story teller book, but not the next "Pilgrim's Progress" exclaimed by Eugene Peterson. It saddens me to have seen a few Christian artists that I have grown to love, strongly recommending the book as though theology is not even an issue.

I am reading through many books with my new pastor and we are taking the time to observe, critique, and weigh out the views and opinions throughout these books from "Christian" authors. I haven't even considered doing this with books, but I do it with movies and music with my students always weighing out the messages secular artists are singing or movies that draw controversies to the way we as Christians are to follow. Sound and Biblical doctrine straight from the Word of God.

Thank you for your review and keep up the good work! I only wish I had of read this sooner!

In Christ,
Joseph

[144. Debbie said the following at 10:59 AM on May 30:]

144

Question for those who have read the book: when you read the book, did you spend an equivalent amount of time in reading and studying God's Word or in prayer asking God to reveal and teach you His truth? Seems to me that the words Christian fiction is an oxymoron. There is no room in the heart of a Christian except for that which is true.

[145. BDB said the following at 12:01 PM on May 31:]

145

Debbie (#144) wrote:

>>did you spend an equivalent amount of time in reading and studying God's Word or in prayer asking God to reveal and teach you His truth?<<

Actually, yes, I had to do a fair amount of digging, since most people at my church don't understand why anyone is criticizing the book. Most of the theological objections are too unfamiliar for people who haven't studied theology to understand. The book seems to take a number of swipes at Reformed theology, but for those of us who didn't grow up in that tradition, it's not clear what the conflict is about.

In the final analysis, the central theological focus of The Shack is scriptural: if we want God to forgive us, we must forgive others.

It is not optional, it is a requirement:

Matthew 6:14-15

14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 18:35

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Mark 11:25-26

25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Luke 6:37

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

There are those who believe that forgiveness is not required until the person repents. Jesus DID say in Luke 7:3-4 that regarding when a "brother" sins. But that is one verse. There are more verses that expect us to forgive others if we want to be forgiven, regardless of whether or not that person repents.

In fact, Jesus' own example shows forgiveness before the perpetrator of evil repented:

Luke 23:34

34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”[a] And they divided His garments and cast lots.

And that is the central thrust of The Shack: how to get to a place where one can forgive those who have perpetrated a great evil, even if they haven't repented. The story is fictional, but designed to show some situation that is clearly evil.

I find it curious that the theological criticisms of The Shack tend to avoid discussing the forgiveness question. It's odd to omit that, because that is the part that people say results in a changed life - the book forces them to finally face - and let loose of - their unforgiveness for some hurt in the past.

[146. Cindy said the following at 6:07 PM on Jun 18:]

146

I loved the book and I am getting ready to read it for the third time...I read it last summer, then again in January and I'll be reading it after I finish Steinbeck's "East of Eden." I love Mr. Young's portrayal of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. I love the realness of the tragedy of Mack...it has become my favorite all time book.

I hoep the movie is good...though I am not sure if anyone or any visual portrayal will do this book justice.

[147. SamIAm said the following at 10:21 PM on Jul 16:]

147

Thank you so much for your review of this book. As I was reading parts of it, I knew that it was not sound doctrine and feared that it was a misrepresentation of God's truth. I am thankful for your time and confirmation. I think the author tried to create a feel good attitude about God without fully understanding who God is. I really was disturbed at several points while reading the book - Jesus discussed that he was not a Christian... that there was no judgement, only love, etc.
Praise God for His sovereignty!
God bless focus on the family!

[148. Mark said the following at 3:00 PM on Aug 5:]

148

Excellent review - you did a great job of pointing out the problems of this book.

[101. Texas Craig said the following at 8:31 PM on Aug 6:]

101

Ted (#99) - To answer your question, how about 1 Kings 19:12 when He appeared to Elijah in a "gentle whisper."

Or what about when He wrestled with Jacob In Genesis 32, and Jacob was not overcome. There, God took the form of a simple man, who did not physically overcome Jacob.

Those are just the first two that come to mind, but there are surely others.

[102. Ted Slater said the following at 11:49 PM on Aug 6:]

102

Thanks, Texas Craig, for the comment.

I need to disagree with your observations. The Lord didn't "appear" to Elijah in a gentle whisper. The Lord communicated to Elijah in a gentle whisper.

Regarding Jacob, I'm not sure how to make sense of that situation. It seems that the person Jacob wrestled with was an angel, sent by God, and not an incarnation of God Himself. Jacob seemed to think it was "God," but the context indicates that the person was merely sent by God.

I'll have to defer to those who better understand Hebrew and the OT. The thing is, even if this person is God, He is not a jolly woman, but a fearsome Person to be reckoned with.

[103. Leah said the following at 12:22 AM on Aug 7:]

103

Carrie T- do you really believe we have the free will to push God away?

(It's just that it sounded like you were claiming that was a truth proclaimed by "The Shack").

[104. Jo said the following at 12:37 AM on Aug 7:]

104

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

Do you mean aside from Jesus? Because Jesus is presented as shepherd, counseller, etc.

God the Father is often presented as a great King - but at the same time we are encouraged to call Him 'Abba' or 'Daddy'. Clearly there are fearsome aspects to God and we should never lose them - but at the same time, through Jesus we have 'child rights'. He is the King, but He is also our 'Papa'. He has freely invited us to enter into His throne room and have a father-child relationship with Him.

Now that certainly should not be confused with an equal relationship. The father is always in charge. But His authority isn't lost when the child takes such liberties as to bounce onto the father's lap. A servant would never be allowed to do such a thing, but the father-child relationship is one based on love, not fear.

[105. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:26 AM on Aug 7:]

105

Ted (#102),

There's been some thought regarding Jacob's contender that he was actually Jesus...

But there you have it. "When has God ever presented himself as anything but lofty and fearsome?"

when God became man, of course...when he humbled himself and died for us =p

of course, I'm pretty certain you were asking about God the Father rather than ANY form of God, right?

[106. Texas Craig said the following at 8:41 AM on Aug 7:]

106

Ted (#102):

No disagreement with you. You are right in that the gentle whisper was not literally an appearance. I should have used the word you used in your inquiry - "presented." I would think it fair to say that God "presented" himself in the gentle whisper, because the words right before that say that God was not "in" the fire, nor "in" the wind, nor "in" the earthquake. But, He spoke through the gentle whisper.

Ultimately, though, it is a non-issue because we both would agree that God has never presented Himself as a jolly woman in the scripture. But, I do think He has presented Himself in different ways at different times. Hebrews 1:1. Not all of those instances struck fear in the heart of the listener.

Having said that, I also believe that we could not possibly truly look upon the full glory of God without utter fear and trembling (if not death), which is why God would not even show Himself fully to Moses, but only let Him look upon "his back." Exodus 33:20-23.

So, any manifestation of God's appearance will not truly be the fullness of God. As such, it seems to make logical sense that God could choose all kinds of forms to show Himself to mankind. However, personally, I would be hesitant to use any descriptive form for God that is not simply intended to be a metaphor or analogy. I think this metaphorical use is what was intended in The Shack, but I also understand why it makes some uncomfortable.

I have the same discomfort when I hear teachers or pastors say things like "this is what God meant by this passage of the Bible" or "This is what God was saying here." Ultimately, the problem with those examples, and with what The Shack does, is that it presumes to know something about God that cannot be known, and it does so in perhaps a too cavalier fashion.

Let us all approach God with reverence and fear, while at the same time lovingly calling Him "Father".

[107. Texas Craig said the following at 9:33 AM on Aug 7:]

107

Leah (#103):

Your use of the word "really" in your sentence implies a bit of incredulity that someone could believe that we have the capacity to push God away. As someone who is not in the reformed camp, I do believe we have the free will to push God away. But, we have such free will only because He has chosen to give it to us. It is like my decision to let my children make choices every day, even though I could force the choice if I really wanted to use my strength to overcome them.

Now, I recognize that those in the reformed/Calvinist camp will disagree with me, and I am not attempting to start a theological argument. Rather, I just wanted to make it clear that the belief that we can push God away should not be viewed with surprise - it is held by those who believe in free will (namely most people who are not Calvinist/Reformed).

[108. Sylvia said the following at 10:20 AM on Aug 7:]

108

in #92 Jackie said "However, the Pharisees and Sadducees each thought they were the most theologically correct groups of their time. "

I think this still sidesteps what was really going on here.

The underlying thesis of this and the former statements is that the struggle for perfect doctrine will interfere with the potential for a close relationship with God, and that the Pharisees exemplified this in that they diligently studied the law and yet were unable to properly respond to the Son of God.

What I seen in the text is that SIN came between these teachers of the law and a relationship with God.

Jesus called them hypocrites. They did what prayed publicly and justified themselves through their meticulous tithing, but their hearts were wicked and they ignored the aspects of the law that did not benefit them politically. We see evidence of their sinfulness (according to the law, which they knew)over and over again. They were envious of Jesus and tried to entrap Him. They broke the law when they brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus without bringing the man also. Jesus arrest and trial were both performed under illegal conditions. These men cherry picked from the law to try to maintain their power. Far from being devoted to sound doctrine, they ignored justice, mercy and faith which were present throughout their scriptures.

The pharisees were sinners who thought they could hide behind the law while they plotted to kill the Son of God. Scripture makes this clear. These were not men who were earnestly seeking out sound doctrine and in so doing mistakenly understood that they were supposed to kill Jesus.

Sound doctrine is not the same thing as a relationship with God, but the quest for truly sound doctrine can only flow from a love for God and a desire to please Him and to know Him more. Surely a man may learn a lot of theology that he may satisfy his flesh by using it where he likes, but in such a case, his sin is the issue, not his doctrine. It is his focus on himself that is vile, not his focus on correct doctrine.

Most of the people who are objecting to the contents of "The Shack" are doing so because they care about a right understanding of God's revelation. I don't believe that there is a single thing inherent in a sincere desire for sound doctrine that will cause a person to miss anything that God wants to reveal to them. I believe that any comparison of the Pharisees and Sadducees to people who sincerely argue against troublesome doctrine is flawed in that it misdiagnoses the root problem in the former.

[109. Carrie T. said the following at 12:45 PM on Aug 7:]

109

Leah (#103),
What I was trying to say in my original post (which I think, re-reading it, that the sentence was a bit unclear) is that one of the reasons I enjoyed reading “The Shack” is because it was about God's love for all His children, but it also continually mentioned our free-will to choose to accept the Lord and follow His will. This is what I should have made clear when I said "I thought it was a beautiful example of God's love for His children and our free-will to push Him away." I am always comforted to know that the Lord never forces us to choose Him. He gives us the choice to pursue a relationship with Him all on our own, and although that can be frustrating or painful, it is also beautiful that the Lord never forces relationships. He wants us to want to follow Him because we want to.
So, I guess in answer to your question, "do you really believe we have the free will to push God away?" I think that we do have free-will to "push God away" or, in other terms, the free will to choose to ignore the Lord and live in denial of Him. Non-Christians prove this to be true on a daily basis. If we didn't have free-will - the option to not follow Christ - then we would all be with the Lord right now in perfect.

[110. Keri said the following at 1:40 PM on Aug 7:]

110

I really am tired of using the term "putting God in a box." Yes, I absolutely believe that God is sovereign and cannot be limited, but He has spelled out His character and attributes in His Word, the bible. It is not "putting God in a box" to believe what He Himself has told us! God does not contradict His holy book- when novels such as the Shack subtly present heresies with an emotional story line that immediately catches our attention, it is not to open our eyes to new truths. It is to get us to believe lies- whether or not William Young meant for that to happen, I don't know. But brothers and sisters, we have an enemy and he is very interested in deceiving us. Christians, stop reading books like the Shack looking for fulfillment in places other than Jesus! Scripture is enough- and if the heresies presented in this book aren't jumping off the page as you read them, then please, read Matthew 24 and be encouraged to increase your study of the bible.

[111. Ted Slater said the following at 1:51 PM on Aug 7:]

111

We published an article this morning by Gary Thomas, "God's Not the Defendant," that further explores some of the problems with this book.

[112. Jo said the following at 3:08 PM on Aug 7:]

112

Whoa, I just read that article and I agreed with him right up until he suggested that a Christians should never question God. He dismisses the examples of Job as 'impertinent' and the psalms as irrelevant because they were written before Jesus, and now we should have no cause to ever question because we have the Holy Spirit? Sorry, but that's just completely wrong. How is it possible or even desirable to live in the real world *without* ever questioning?

[113. Texas Craig said the following at 3:24 PM on Aug 7:]

113

Jo (#112):

I agree with you. The idea that we should not question God is very troubling to me. The Scripture is filled with people who question God. To me, the issue is not whether we question God, but whether we are willing to live with what He tells us (or chooses not to tell us).

A humble questioning of God is simply, in my opinion, a desire to grow in our knowledge of God and His truth. Sure, if we are doing it for our own beenfit to puff ourselves up, then it is wrong. But, if we do it out of a desire to know God more and to better follow Him, then that is glorifying to God. Moreover, I think a healthy questioning of God in a desire to learn more helps us when we share God's truth with unbelievers.

So, for me, I will continue desiring to learn and question more about what God would have me to learn. But, I will also always acknowlegde that God is God, and I am not. Therefore, I must be willing to accept if I do not like the answer or if I get no answer at all.

[114. Ted Slater said the following at 4:16 PM on Aug 7:]

114

Jo -- are we reading the same article? The author doesn't say "don't ask God questions." He says that we should be cautious about our attitude when asking Him questions, and should be content if He chooses to provide no answers. The author goes on to say that Jesus' incarnation has changed a few things, including how we may interact with the Creator.

"Healthy questioning" is fine, of course. Demanding that God answer is not fine.

[115. Jo said the following at 1:08 AM on Aug 8:]

115

But what is 'healthy' questioning? The article doesn't come right out and say that questioning is always wrong, but he does say:

"How can one of God's children truly experience all this [forgiveness etc] and even dare to ask God to account for Himself?"

He also says that Job asked his questions 'in an impertinent manner', which I don't think is true. God praises and rewards Job at the end of the book for his faithfulness. I think Job shows us exactly how we *should* respond to suffering, not how we shouldn't.

I also disagree with this:

"It is also very significant that you don't find the writers of the New Testament voicing these same questions." (He goes on to say that our relationship with Christ 'supersedes many of these questions'.)

I think Job and Psalms give us great examples of the right response to suffering - you bring it into the presence of God. You don't deny it, or try to talk yourself out of it, or invent your own answers (he's right about that), or run away from God - you give Him all your emotions and questions in the best way that you can, which a lot of the time may well be 'impertinent'. I think that's infinitely better than the only alternative, which is having a less than authentic relationship with God, and a less than authentic faith.

[116. alex said the following at 1:25 AM on Aug 8:]

116

There is all this talk of anthropomorhpizing God as a man in The Shack, but I really don't think that was what the author intended. It seems he meant to portray characteristics of God (such as someone who listens, who is patient, someone who is a good communicator, etc.) that is not commonly found in men and so used a different character. I think there is a lot of validity to the author choosing a different character than a white 30 something man with long hair and a robe. No simpleton should expect any human work to perfectly portray God, and they most certainly should not expect human form to have any validity unless one is talking about the actual body of Christ, because God is Spirit. Of course, Christians anthropomorphize God as a man all the time, especially as it relates to marriage, an no one says anything about that, so I'm a little disinclined to agree with your talk of theological incorrectness. Nothing is theologically perfect except theology and oh wait...that's not Scripture.

[117. Ted Slater said the following at 9:45 AM on Aug 8:]

117

Jo, the choice isn't between asking God questions and lacking authenticity. That's a false dilemma.

You can both ask God questions *and* do so in an appropriate way. Or you can ask God questions *and* do so with antagonistic, accusatory motives.

The first is fine, as author Gary Thomas clearly says. The second is where the problem lies.

alex, you wrote that "Christians anthropomorphize God as a man all the time, especially as it relates to marriage...." Can you explain that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Of course the Father has never been a man, though Jesus has been.

Strange, the bitterness toward systematic theology (aka "the study of God")....

[118. Jo said the following at 10:45 AM on Aug 8:]

118

Ted,

I agree with you that we should question God in a reverent way (a la Psalms and Job), rather than an accusatory way (a la unbelievers). But to me, the article didn't seem to say that.

The author's point, particularly in the parts I quoted, seemed to be that it's better to simply accept the mystery of God without asking questions. Even his opening quote from Augustine suggests that. He implied that books like Job and Psalms were absent from the NT because questioning God in those ways is no longer really necessary.

You obviously think I'm reading too much into the article, perhaps you're right, but I do think it leaves itself open to that interpretation.

Also, you say, "The choice isn't between asking God questions and lacking authenticity. That's a false dilemma."

I don't think it is. I think at some point in our lives we're all going to feel confused, angry, upset, doubting, lost, afraid. Either we bring our emotions and questions to God in the best way that we can, or our relationship with Him lacks honesty.

I agree with you completely that we can't demand answers from Him. But questioning is at times an integral part of the relationship, I think. And I would also suggest that those who do dare to question God when they need to are probably more likely to keep going in the faith than those who keep their questions hidden from Him.

[119. Jo said the following at 10:46 AM on Aug 8:]

119

Perhaps a post on the topic of questioning God is in order? :P

[120. Tami said the following at 11:21 AM on Aug 8:]

120

When I read Gary Thomas's article, I got the sense that he was referring to placing God on the defensive.

I went back and re-read the part where he talked about the NT writers not showing this pattern of questioning. I agree with him in that it is certainly *notable* that these books don't ask these types of questions, and I certainly agree that much of that has to do with Jesus' arrival on the scene, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in believers' lives. However... I *also* think it has to do with the literary form in which those books were written. Most of the NT is epistolary -- instructions from the apostles regarding how to live out the Christian faith. On the other hand... I do see the questioning in the *gospels*; Jesus Himself asks, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Of course, this is not said in an accusatory manner.

The narrative and poetic forms of many of the books of the Hebrew scripture lend themselves to more emotional expression, and that includes searching questions. However, it's notable that these questions *don't* show up in prophecy, or in the books of the Law.

To draw a rough analogy, I guess I would conclude that our questions are more dramatic and narrative; more like learning truth through a novel. Whereas, God's instructions for our lives must be written in an instructional manner, and therefore, wouldn't be as full of searching questions.

[121. Texas Craig said the following at 9:47 PM on Aug 9:]

121

Ted (#117):

In regard to your perception about Alex's antagonism toward systematic theology, I can understand that somewhat. While Alex may or may not have such antagonism, I myself have wrestled with it at times. It is not so much that I am antagonistic toward truth, but rather I am concerned at times that we value "theology" too much.

First, let me say I value scripture as our highest authority. I have led many bible study groups and have taught a class entitled "Introduction to the Bible." I love to study God's word and it is my plumb line. But, I also have come to see that it is easy to fall into a trap of valuing God's word above God's people.

In fact, God's word expresses a similar concern in 1 Corinthians where it says, "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." The two are not mutually exclusive, but it certainly is possible to value knowledge above people, and that is tragic, in my opinion, because God has told us that loving Him and loving people are the two things we are commanded to do to fulfill the whole law. Like Jesus said, "By this all men shall know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

So, I dislike the term "theology." Rather, I prefer the term "truth." I desire to know truth because, in so doing, it shall set me free. Free to love God and love my neighbor as myself. And, as we know, Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." So, if we know Jesus, we know truth--even if we do not know theology.

I am thankful that we serve a God who teaches us truth by His Spirit. Truly, He uses scripture to show us that truth, but it does not have to come through "systematic theology," in the way that term is understood by many teachers and theologians today. Good thing, since for much more than 1,000 years after Christ, much of the scripture was not even accessible to people!

Peace and grace!

[122. ray stone said the following at 8:53 PM on Aug 10:]

122

I browsed the pages of The Shack and ended up reading about three and a half chapters, plus the ending. Voom! Powerful. Despite some awkward sentencing and obivous theological loopholes, the book is creatively absorbing. Clearly is does not line up one hundred percent with scripture (no book does), but this is why it is FICTION. Does it dishonors God? I think not. Is is leaven and heresy? That is debatable. It simply is what it is. Let the reader beware. An equally intriguing and controversial work is A Step Into Deliverance by T. Pugh. It is a riveting autobiography about a pastor's amazing journey down the road to the deliverance ministry. It's a real page-turner

[123. bonnie said the following at 6:04 PM on Aug 11:]

123

I have read the book twice. I had never heard of it, just picked it up a little over a week ago. I approached it as a fictional book. The story was kind of unusual, but interesting. It was really a feel good view of God. I did not think about the theological aspect until I got cross looks from some people. Then I looked deeper into what was said. Yes some parts are questionable. If you are well versed in theology then it is questionable to you. But for someone who knows God a little it is good to get someone to look deeper into scripture. Like the Bereans, they read the scriptures to see that these things were so. And so anyone who reads it should also search the scriptures and see if these things are so. It would be foolish for anyone to read a fictional book and take it as truth in any form.

[124. tony said the following at 7:18 PM on Aug 15:]

124

I think the book misses on many counts. However, I find that many small statements by the characters reveal profound truths about God. These small statements could be unpacked in entire studies. Often these are obstacles to those who do not know God. I think the book admirably tackles the issue of blaming God for evil. It shines a light in the dark corner of an unbeliever's belief system. I believe there is an opportunity this book presents for talking about this obstacle of evil and suffering. It helps establish that God is not to blame for evil, He will have the final say and He is good all the time. It establishes that the fall is the source of our sin. It helps point out that it is not our "sins" but rather our "sin" that separates us from God. Sure it misses on the inerrant truth of Scripture. But - if you are a follower of Christ it's time to step up and do your job with some friends who I can guarantee have read this book and are waiting for an authentic believer to help them make sense of it (and more importantly help them find Truth).

[125. Mario Alejandre said the following at 9:28 AM on Sep 5:]

125

Interesting. Lot's of criticism, without, in my opinion, any understanding about what is being said. Of course, you probably don't have issues with Tolkien or Lewis, who so wonderfully capture the imagination and bring us to a place where we see things from a larger, non-denominational perspective. Some of the criticisms you make, are no different than what many do. Take something out of context and then inflate your own presuppositions. It's sad really. In this, Papa never claims to be female, but indeed Spirit. The purpose of this personal revelation is to show that Mack has a very wrong view of who God is and uses the antithesis of Mack's notions to undermine his pre-conceived notions. One recommended post also said that Young's portrayal of the trinity was tritheistic. Again, a mistake. The dialogue in this novel stressed that they are one. Did it create a sense of mystery? Sure it did. But make no mistake, the trinity is the most complex of subjects, and I think Young goes a long way to capturing the completeness in relationship God has with himself prior to any act of creation.

Finally, it is a work of fiction! It is intended to stir the mind to thinking and reflection. Often times we attack these types of books as being a new epistle for our theological understanding. Our attacks often show that we are biased towards a worldview that, even though we claim is a full expression of God's truth, does so at the expense of our creative and relational tendencies that often get suppressed or challenged by list-driven peoples. That is sad.

I don't think Young intended to create such a theological uproar. He just wanted to teach his kids about God and invited us in this journey. What should we think his kids will make of his brothers and sisters getting on his case because some argue his "system" of thought isn't right? I'm hoping the dialogue encourages them to there knees and into scripture to "converse" with God and others.

Neven's title, "Ramshackle theology" says it all. It's my hope that his theology is complete and can provide a perfect understanding of the nature of who God is and his chief characteristic, love. WIth that in mind, how then does this intersect with the reality that we all face in this life. I'm sure the author's own espoused theology (whose propositions, by the way, I am sure I would probably agree with) never leaves anyone with an incomplete or false image of who God is.

If our ideas of God are incomplete at best, then I think we should be more gracious in a fictional, imaginative expression of relationship God has with Himself and desires to have with us. Even if that story means we have to examine our own pre-conceived understandings of who God is.

[126. Trafford Brown said the following at 1:00 PM on Sep 8:]

126

At the very least I think it behooves believers to take any literature, especially which espouses Christian theology and/or thought, with a grain of salt and discernment; that is, read between the lines. If it's claptrap, it will become apparent. If it has some worth, it will remain a part of the mainstream, orthodox church as a whole for some time. Consider CS Lewis and Tolkien.

Also, consider the likes of the Prayer of Jabez and The Purpose Driven Life. I think that when a work by any Christian quickly soars to the top and is promoted by Christian and secular media with little critique of the questionable parts, we need to take a step back as a Church and as individual Christians.

I haven't read the book yet, but from everything I'm reading about it, I'll be even more discerning if I ever do read it.

I find it quite troubling when Christians latch on to any new major literary work as "the" thing, when they're more often then not, incomplete and when one ascribes too much to them, easily falls into the heresies that those who've critiqued the book point out about the book in the first place.

Too many Christians jumping on bandwagons with little spiritual discernment, wisdom or knowledge.

Be a critical reader, not a gullible one. If a book is merely sating your emotions, especially one that's discussing a lot of theological points, it's time to reassess how you're reading and why.

[127. Wolf RUTTO said the following at 7:20 PM on Sep 10:]

127

William P. Young’s much discussed book, “The Shack”, is interesting for a reason that does not seem to have been discussed so far: It turns into exactly the opposite direction of former attempts at dealing with an age-old question (called “Theodizee” by philosophers since Leibniz, 1710, but discussed already by Greek philosophers): how the idea of a personal, almighty, all-knowing, merciful, loving, and just GOD can be reconciled with the random, undeserved suffering of innocents in this world.
One could say, that this question has acquired new relevance with the development of world-wide news-media that keep us informed daily about wars, “ethnic cleansings”, natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis), slowly starving children … and – on the other hand - the unpunished demise of people like Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot, who died peacefully in their beds.
But an observant and compassionate person does not really need the news-media to ask questions: Each day, all around us there are children being born … with very unequal gifts and equipment for life: Some intelligent or gifted in some special field … others outright stupid from the very beginning, some beautiful and attractive … others ugly and unattractive, some attractive and intelligent … others ugly and stupid (some doubly blessed and some doubly cursed), some into loving and supportive families … others into broken homes or no homes at all. Where is God’s “justice” in that? (Just watch at a children’s fair a group of child-cripples - some of them blind - with pale and distorted little faces being pushed in wheelchairs by constantly changing “volunteers”. They might never find love, will never date, never compete, always depend on others…) In other words: It’s not only what we do to each other, that causes undeserved misery. The injustice starts right at our birth!
Or look on your way to work under the bridges where the homeless live! Why them? Why not you? Who would choose that lifestyle? …
You end up asking yourself: How is it possible, that - even nowadays! – a majority of the somewhat well-to-do (in the American Bible-belt supposedly over 80 %!) manages to “look the other way” and still believe in a just and loving God?! And most of these “believers” often quote the Bible and claim that they know it. Do they not see, that the Bible – especially the Old Testament – is full of cruelty, random killings, a primitive, tribal mentality that led us into wars and still causes human misery?
I can only think of two reasons for this kind of “blind belief”, that capacity of ignoring facts that anyone can observe, refusing to acknowledge and integrate it into their “Weltbild”:
One is mental conditioning: It is interesting to observe how many people – struck by disaster and really having no reason any longer to believe in a merciful and just God – hold on to their religious upbringing … just feeling helpless and desperate but not having enough energy left to rebel and question God’s “kindness” …
The other – and more important - one is our psychological need to believe in something that gives meaning to our lives and relieves us of the fear of death and its uncertainty. Exactly this need is being addressed by religion, any religion. And in combination with the first factor it makes us hold on desperately to those religions we happen to be brought up in … even in the face of contradicting observations.
Now – to return to what was stated in the first paragraph above – somewhat sophisticated Christian thinkers (and many theologians amongst them) tried to alleviate the dilemma outlined above by “depersonalizing” God, away from the threatening father-image (mainly of the Old Testament) to a more and more abstract concept of “creative power” and focusing on the figure of Jesus, who is supposed to symbolize love and forgiveness.
This, however, did not really solve the problem, how the cruelties and injustices in this world could be reconciled with an almighty, loving and JUST God, be it the father or the son (the Holy Ghost always remained kind of abstract). When asked, most theologians prefer not to comment on this. If pushed, they will answer, that it is the freedom of choice, misused, since Adam and Eve ate the apple, which created this horrible world. In other words: It is not God, who caused it to go so wrong, but US. HE only allowed it to happen … knowing very well how limited our capacities for the right insights and actions were/are …
This idea, in my mind, is almost as grotesquely wrong as entrusting a crocodile with building a computer … and simply does not fit with the idea of an all-knowing God.
W. P. Young does not seem to find a better answer in his book. But he completely differs from the lately prevailing depictions of God by transplanting the trinity into a US lower-middle-class horizon: God-father becomes a comfortable, friendly Afro-American woman (called “papa”), Jesus a somewhat Jewish looking wood-worker, and the Holy Ghost an Asian woman. They talk and act like a warm-hearted, down-to-earth American family (they cook and eat a lot and never fail to wash dishes … ;-). They definitely display a sense of humor. Only sometimes, when core-questions are touched on in their conversations with the narrator, they suddenly sound abstract, which often makes the meaning of their pronouncements difficult to understand.
But do they solve the main question of this book: Why God allowed the abduction, (most likely sexual) mistreatment, and finally murder of the narrator’s beloved little daughter to happen? I DON’T THINK SO!
The narrator is helped somewhat by his lengthy conversations with the “trinity” and in the end even “forgives” the killer of his daughter, though not very convincingly. The latter, most likely a deranged pervert beyond help, is caught in the end. But the basic question of this (otherwise well-written) book, the problem of Theodizee, is not being answered. It is rather washed away in a lot of talk about the love of God for us and us loving God and each other. It is basically sentimental, but its sentimentality is cleverly disguised behind common sense humor and the ordinariness of its protagonists.
Did we really expect an answer to the question that has tormented generations of believers (and especially non-believers)? I doubt it. The great echo this book has found is only indicative of our despair.

[128. Gaston Irby said the following at 1:36 PM on Sep 11:]

128

Tom,
Did you read a different book than I did. I can't but help that you also read the King James Version of the Bible feeling it to be the only inspired word of God. Before I read The Shack I had already met the Master, God who is truly femine and truly masculine. He is my all in all.
He welcomed me at the foot of the cross, where I saw the God of wrath and what that wrath and holiness cost His only begotten son. My righteousness is in Him and Him alone.
As far as Muslims, Jehovahs Witness, Baptist, Catholics, Buddist the book is clear that there is one way to the Father. We are too quick to criticize, judge and stand in our relegion to see the truth of this parable. The fruit of this awesome book is that souls are coming into the kingdom drawn by the Father.
When at 19 I was saved it wasn't the wrath of God that drew me, but His love for me, for this I am eternally grateful. His wrath was satisfied in the death of His Son, Jesus.
Glory!

[129. Cole said the following at 4:43 AM on Sep 13:]

129

Mr. Neven,

I just wanted to begin by saying that I so appreciate your desire to discern between heresy and truth. Indeed, as citizens of Heaven and children of God, it is our right and responsibility to always inquire of the Lord and ask for the spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17) that we might better know and more intimately love our Bridegroom Savior. I am truly grateful for the much-needed discernment with which you approach this book.

Also, I want to state that I believe the Bible is the complete and inspired Word of God. There is nothing "higher" or "more" than His Holy Word, nor is there anything truer. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, yes? And Jesus is the express image of the Father. So through the transitive property (and I hope my use of this geometric term here will be forgiven), when we read His Word, we are seeing the Father.

That was the prelude. Now I begin:

Unfortunately, I think as Christians living in the West, it is very easy for us to label ideas that we are not familiar with as "cultish" or "heresy" (this is not to say that those labels aren't always deserved and true), but because our God is an infinite and everlasting God (Is. 40: 28), I think it is imperative we approach these new ideas with a spirit of discernment, yes, but also with a heart of meekness and humility for there will always be aspects of our Lord we do not yet understand and we do not want to immediately label the unfamiliar as "wrong." (This does not mean I support the view that everyone should just be "open-minded" and cherry pick the truth. What is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right, and His Spirit reveals that to us through His Word which is which when we come before Him with a humble heart and ask.)

There were definitely moments in the book (and even some concepts) that I found troubling, so I am not at all advocating the book as 100% true (and to be honest, not even churches have 100% of the truth-only the His Holy Word, the Bible does, but there are still disputes in the modern church over the gift of tongues, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc.) However, there were some issues you had with certain portions of the book that I did not find troubling at all. These I would like to address:

1) When God the Father is first anthropomorphized as a woman, I don't think it was Young's intent to make our Lord a goddess ("Papa" exhibits all the actions of a tender father as opposed to a tender mother). The fact is, many people in my generation (I am not yet 20 years old) have been sexually abused by fathers, step fathers, uncles, and other men. It is true that our generation is "a fatherless generation," and many of these victims are unable to connect emotionally or spiritually to men after they have been abused. It is also true that our God is a tender Father and He woos His children tenderly (of course, this is not the only way He woos, but He is always gentle with the broken). He obviously knows the way some hearts are shut to male figures, so would it be strange for Him to come and touch those hearts in a way they won't shy away from at first? I think what Young was trying to say was that He is certainly our Father (that is why he stuck with the title "Papa," despite the outward appearance of the anthropomorphized Father), but for those who are unable to open the doors of their hearts to any male figure, He is able to enter through another door. This does not change His nature, His character, His heart--He just finds a new way in. And once Young's character learns to trust the Father's goodness, He is able to appear as a male without terrifying him. This sounds, to me, like a wise Father who knows His son's heart and the wounds and scars inside, and knows the best way to enter in. In this case, He moves kindly and tenderly so as not to frighten the hurting child. This does not at all sound like an idol a petulant human created and changes to fit his whims.

2) As an Asian-American, I recently became aware of the fact that Jesus is not Caucasian like the pretty Sunday School pictures told me He is, but that He is in fact, Middle-Eastern (I've always known He was Jewish, but I never considered the implications of His ethnicity until very recently). I had some difficulty accepting the fact that my Asian appearance is something my Bridegroom ordained and desired and now loves about me. No, he is not Asian in appearance Himself, but it was His good pleasure that I look this way with my small "almond" eyes (in truth, they're not almond-shaped at all, they're just tiny) and tawnier skin. I believe Young's decision to show our Lord as non-Caucasian races served two purposes: 1. to break our religious mold of who we think He is (and in this sentence, I am using the word "religious" in the Pharisaical sense, when the religious leaders of Jesus' day thought they had the infinite God all figured out), because if we will be honest with ourselves, most Christians in the West have shrunk God into a two-inch idol we place in the shelves of our minds and 2. to show non-Caucasian Christians in the Western World that when He sees His Church, His beloved Bride, He sees the image and reflection of His beauty in her--and this extends to every member of His Church, not regardless of his or her race, but including it.

3. Young does show the Lord as a judge. The beautiful Sophia judges Young's main character.

4. "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?"
-Young did not write this book to explain Christianity to unbelievers, he wrote it to share his heart with his children. But if Young had written this with the intent to convert, why not start with the Trinity? The fascinating way the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves us (John 17) and gives us His Holy Spirit because He wants to be with us even now, and not just when we get to heaven, seems like a fine place to start. In fact, I'm not sure how I would explain His outrageous love to another human being without sharing where it came from (the Godhead).

5. And of course Jesus was "before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together." I do not see how that contradicts the excerpt on Jesus' humanity. From the moment Jesus took on human flesh, he DID live out of His relationship with His Father. That is why He prayed and fasted and interceded. Because Jesus lived the way the Father intended all humans to live, out of perfect intimacy with the Father, Jesus could walk in the power of the Holy Spirit. I fail to see how this is subordinationism. Trusting the Father perfectly does not make Jesus "less" than the Father. Who could trust God perfectly other than the perfect God? You say yourself that "authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead" and explain nicely, "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." I agree wholeheartedly, and Young seems to as well.

5. Lastly, this is my own view and I can see how you came to your understanding. But this is what I thought Young was saying in the excerpt in which he talks about the Bible. Far from saying that the written Word of God is obsolete or useless, I thought Young was addressing the way many modern churches in the West now play the role of that which many of the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day played. Most of the Pharisees (and Sadducees, etc.) had a complete monopoly on the Scripture. And by this I mean that they studied and approached the Word of God with human knowledge instead of divine Inspiration (translation: asking the Holy Spirit--or back in that day, Yahweh--for a spirit of wisdom and revelation so that one might fully understand what He is saying. We as Christians know that a non-Christian's understanding of the Word and a Christian's understanding of the Word is completely different not because of intellect, but because the Holy Spirit reveals to us the deep things of the Father while the non-Christian must plod through incomprehensible words armed only with his natural mind and wisdom). They ended up missing the One they had been so eagerly waiting for. In a similar way, I think many Christians are afraid of the Holy Spirit's revelation because it can be risky (not because the Holy Spirit is faulty, but because there are many deceptive spirits that prey on our weaknesses and we are easily deceived humans), and have approached the Bible purely with the natural mind instead of asking the Spirit of God what He is saying through His Word. We can see in the Bible, that every moment belongs to a season when He is doing something very special. If we are not open to the leading of the Holy Spirit and try to navigate the seasons with our own human reasoning instead, we will miss what He is doing completely as the Pharisees did in Jesus' day.

Again, you and all of the Boundless staff have been a tremendous blessing to me and an invaluable source of wisdom. I sincerely thank the Lord for the work He is doing through you and the rest of the staff, and I personally thank you again for your desire to be discerning in all things. I know that He is happy with that desire! I pray that He would give us all grace upon grace to approach the deep things of the Lord with a spirit of humility, knowing that all wisdom and all knowledge comes from Him alone. Lord, we want to know You.

[130. Trevor said the following at 10:38 AM on Sep 18:]

130

For anyone arguing about this book as fiction and comparing it to CS Lewis there is one fatal flaw the author makes he has admitted in the the forward of the book as well as interviews that his goal once Jacbson agreed to publish was to share their idea of God with the world so if the idea was to share the biblical God to the world how come they left so much of him out. Can any one say Wolf is sheeps' clothing.

Also how come the only reason Wayne Jacobson would help with the book was if all the Universal Reconciliation theology was taken out first which is the theology that Jesus is the only way but all who die outside Christ will get to repent in Hell and the Lake of fire. He had this in the version he printed for his kids as a gift.

Trevor

[131. Laura said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 8:]

131

The problem with this book is that churches are handing it out to their own people, saying its a great, spiritual read when it is got so many missteps in it. Then in turn the 'christian' world goes nuts over it, unbelieves may pick it up and get more skewed views on God then what is already just out there in the world. I did not want to read this book, but after much controversy I decided to see what it was all about. I was mortified and saddened. Is it fiction? Yes, but sometimes people take works of fiction as truth, hold onto that as THE truth and become severly mislead.

[132. pencie said the following at 8:35 PM on Oct 13:]

132

This book is fantastical.I wish religion were so simple.This man has taken every beleif in christianity and made a mokery of it

[133. Val said the following at 12:50 PM on Oct 15:]

133

The question is, 'Is it necessary to toss away the Bible to portray a loving God?" Young seems to believe so. Anything that tosses away truth 'for a greater good' is not ... good.

[134. Emmie said the following at 10:00 PM on Oct 15:]

134

I am not one for hype, but I read "The Shack" because it was given to me by some friends. Although I found many things to be problematic in the book, let's just say that it's not the first time I haven't swallowed a book written by a Christian author whole.

However, just because I use discernment doesn't mean that I am willing to entirely dismiss "The Shack". Remember, "Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things and keep that which is good."

(1 Thessalonians 5)

Sounds like all complaints about Young's presentation of the trinity agree that the trinity is a word to express God's nature that neither he nor Christ ever employ in the Bible, and that theologians and common people alike get tongue tied when they try to explain it. Huh. Even the above sentence where I refer to God and Christ using separate pronouns could send people into dizzy spells about the separation of persons of the trinity, etc. etc.

Could it be that in each of our hearts, which are pondered by the Lord, we have our own way of digesting all that the Scriptures say into some kind of personal way of relating to God?

If people are going to read any type of Christian literature, I'd rather that people read about entering into a relationship with God than reading that if their income doesn't double within one year of becoming a believing Christian then they're just not saying their prayers right (or something like that).

"Prove all things and keep that which is good."

Please refer, my brothers and sisters, to Matthew 23.

Wouldn't a "weightier matter" (using the KJV language) that "The Shack" addresses be that even Christians have to deal with very deep suffering, and that God's faithfulness is the only thing that keeps us from fleeing from our faith at the slightest hint of discomfort?

And remember, God told Ezekiel -- to whom he spoke in wild and fantastic visions -- to tell Israel:

“Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign Lord. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live."

(Ezekiel 18:23)

And remember that verse right after John 3:16?

"God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him."

Is W.P. Young a prophet? I don't know. Will I take the same attitude to "prove all things" to his book as I take to every article here on Boundless, and every book and film discussed here?

You better believe it!

[135. Sheri said the following at 11:39 AM on Oct 20:]

135

I am quite disappointed to read some of the 'professional' reviews on this book, especially on the Focus on the Family website. I can respect a 'word of caution', however I often wonder how our human logic prevents us from seeing the Truth that Christ is trying to speak to us? (I am speaking to myself as much as anyone.)

God used this book in such a huge way to draw me closer to Himself, to change some of the wrong perceptions I have had of Him. I was raised in the church, the Alliance denomination to be exact. Since reading the book, I am falling more in love with Christ everyday because it has helped me understand Him more. The Trinity was explained in such a way that I understood to my human extent. (Will we ever truly understand until we get Home? I'm sure we won't.)

There are a couple of things that I really learned from it. The first being that the Trinity wants us to commune with them at a higher level than a lot of Christians do... with NO expectations. They JUST WANT ME. I don't have to be good enough, I don't have to follow a list of rules... I just have to be and accept the gift of grace and forgiveness. Which is the most difficult part. Believing that even through Christ, I am worthy to commune with them.

2. When Mack was placed behind the judge's desk and asked to put God on the stand and judge Him, that hit me hard. Who has NOT felt like doing that at least once?? Especially through the valleys of life? The author was trying to make a point. No where in the book did it say that we are judges of God. In this book, it was a method chosen to display how God worked in Mack's life out of love. God didn't have to, but then again, God didn't need to die on the cross either. But He did. He humbled Himself to this point because He loved us so much. This is how I view this book. God loved Mack so much that He was walking along side of Mack, confronting the anger and emotional pain and turmoil he was going through to help him understand what happened. The book is right. We can't ask for free will and expect God to step in just whenever things go wrong. It doesn't work that way at all. We are living in a fallen world. Bad things are going to happen.

3. I must admit that when I first read that God came as a big, black woman, I was a little taken back. But then I read when Papa explained to Mack that due to his past, if He had come as any other form, Mack would not have listened. It is true that we transfer our issues onto God. I makes me sad to read how people are getting their 'knickers in a knot' over this detail which is by no means minor. There is a much greater truth underlying here and most people are missing it because they simply choose not to get past the woman part. He is not saying that God is a woman. It is so comforting to me, that I serve a God that will be personal TO ME. He knows EXACTLY how to reach each person in a way in which they will respond and open to Him. In Numbers 22, God spoke through a donkey. With Moses, He used a burning bush. Is it really BEYOND God to come to someone with a horrible past such as Mack, in the FORM of a woman? I would suggest reading the book BRUCHKO and the Motilone Miracle where God used Bruce Olson to reach a stone-age Indian tribe in the rain forests. He related Himself to an ancient Motilone legend to show Himself to those people. Quite frankly, God can use whatever He wants and who are we to judge that? God is much bigger than we will ever be able to comprehend or understand. I strongly suggest we quit trying to put God in a box and start realizing that He is a whole lot bigger than we will ever be able to comprehend.

I am so grateful that I read this book. It helped me heal A LOT from issues in my own life and understand God better and be able to love Him more.

If I could have one challenge to the Christians that read this, stop getting so caught up in the details and look behind to what God is speaking to you about. I would LOVE to be able to sit down one on one with William Young. It would be an interesting conversation.

[136. IMO said the following at 12:46 PM on Oct 22:]

136

"I can respect a 'word of caution', however I often wonder how our human logic prevents us from seeing the Truth that Christ is trying to speak to us?"

Yes, Truth is spoken in the Bible. Start there.
Another book can't add or take away. If it does, it doesn't align with Scripture.

[137. Carlos said the following at 8:25 AM on Oct 28:]

137

Very interesting and different opinions/views about the Shack. I just finished the book and now you're really wanting to know whether I approve of it or not. What are you looking for here....a majority of opinions so that you can be safe about what you already know in your heart you think about the book? I'll assume you have read the book. If you haven't, I have a hard time reading anything you have to say about it. Why would you talk about something that you're not familiar with? What makes you believe that you are qualified to give an opinion of a book you haven't read based on what everybody else says about it? Or based on what you think the book says? What an immature idea. You let others think for yourself and then dare to give your "educated" opinion on the book you never read!?

Now, in my opinion like everybody else here has an opinion...this is not very difficult to understand. Are you looking for the true God of the Bible? Well, guess what...read THE BIBLE! Ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you as you read HIS word, that's it. Why would you be looking for HIM in a book that a flawed human wrote? Very immature of you to do so. Now, are you wanting to be uplifted by a FLAWED author who put down in words his personal experience of God as he understands it? Read The Shack and have fun doing it! Aren't we commanded by the Lord to examine all things and hold fast to what is good? Read 1 Thessalonians 5:21 in its context from verse 12 - 28.

It just makes me so sad to see so many of us taking down a fellow brother because his story doesn't perfectly line up with our understanding of scripture! Seems like many of us Christians believe that someone almost needs to have a theology degree to understand God! So my conclusion: Want to read a personal journey of a man written in a form of a FICTION novel? enjoy the book! Want to understand God for WHO HE SAYS HE IS? Man read HIS BOOK, THE BIBLE! Want to read a fellow Christian's opinion that tells you WHO HE THINKS GOD IS? OK read the novel but don't go looking for Eternal truths in there! see that it's a book of fiction?

So many are preoccupied that "books like these" are poisonous to Christianity...wow, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Please, read the Bible and YOU find for yourself the God of the Bible and stop looking around to see what other have to say. Do your own homework "work your own salvation" It is your responsibility, not any reviewers here to do it for you.

Find Christ for yourself like the author did and don't you dare to write it down, or you'll end up being criticized for not being theologically correct for the rest of your life!

[138. Lana said the following at 9:41 AM on Oct 28:]

138

I have just finished reading "The Shack", and enjoyed it very much. Is it perfest? No. But can it be used to bring people to God? Yes, I believe so. The comments on the portrayal of the Trinity are confusing to me. Did they not answer all at once on more than one occasion, thus showing the nature of th Trinity? They also had the conversation about one not being "in charge" b/c they were ONE. I am not a theologian...obviously. I am just someone who read this book, was very moved and was encouraged that my God wants more than anything a relationship with me, someone he is "especailly fond of". Isn't that a great thought?

[139. IMO said the following at 2:02 PM on Oct 28:]

139

For me, I'm just confused why some of you find these "revelations" about God in a FICTION book, not in the Bible.

For example, Lana says that, "I am just someone who read this book, was very moved and was encouraged that my God wants more than anything a relationship with me, someone he is "especailly fond of". Isn't that a great thought?"

And you can't get that in the Bible? The fact that God wants a relationship with you? That he is fond of you?

[140. Kathleen said the following at 10:35 PM on Nov 9:]

140

In the mist of dealing with an interim pastor at our church who turns out to be into the 'progressive christianity' movement I started to read this book. I had not heard anything about this book before picking it up. I started to wonder about it in the beginning when Nan referred to God as "Papa". I found that disrespectful. When I got to the part when Mack goes to the cabin and is met by the african american woman who is "God", I had enough. This is pretty dangerous stuff. It will suck people into wanting a relationship with a god that is not the God of Eternal Life.

Our world is full of people that want to make God into something He is not. They want to make it all about 'love'. There is so much more to God than love. I

[141. Katie H said the following at 2:26 AM on Nov 30:]

141

I have just finished reading "the shack", my in-laws gave it to me for my birthday. I must say I loved the visions the simplicity gave me and it came at a perfect time. I have been at a low for months and this renewed my sense of love and forgiveness. I have only read some comments and am sharing mine for me, I feel it was the right book for me to read. Others may need something else... I will be recommending it to others, no matter what others think. Each person has the CHOICE to read or not..

[142. Larry Bone said the following at 8:48 AM on Feb 11:]

142

The thing that concerns me within Christianity is when we try to compare everything said about God in terms of matching it up with scripture. No view or writing is perfect other than scripture, so nothing ever matches up entirely. God has been more than tolerant with our attempts to put Him into our framework of thought. Paul said even bad theology will sometimes bring people to Jesus Christ. And, believe me, there is plenty of "bad theology" being espoused every Sunday and even in theological schools every day.

"The Shack" certainly would not be even on the list to become a part of the "canon" of spiritual thought. I don't think that was the intent of the book. However, it does make people think when they read it. I read it and disagree theologically with most views portrayed. However, it is fiction, and I read it as such. It made me laugh, cry, think (heaven forbid), and genuinely want to look further into scripture to learn more about my God, my Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ, and my Holy Spirit. For that I am grateful. No theologian is going to like this book as a treatise on God. It wasn't written with the thought of become a part of theology school. Hopefully it causes readers to re-discover the Trinity and the truth in scripture!

[143. Joseph said the following at 9:54 PM on Feb 23:]

143

Tom,

I really do appreciate your post about the book and it's short comings of sound doctrine and the misunderstood use of theology. I have just started reading this book just a couple days ago. It is a very catchy and easy to read book, but it has so many things in it that cause me to just sit the book down, say a prayer, and read a little more. So many people that have read it at my church are saying, "it is such and awesome book, you must read it!" I am regrettably going to have to show them the false doctrines littered throughout the book and the falseness of the "god" portrayed throughout the books.

It is a very good story teller book, but not the next "Pilgrim's Progress" exclaimed by Eugene Peterson. It saddens me to have seen a few Christian artists that I have grown to love, strongly recommending the book as though theology is not even an issue.

I am reading through many books with my new pastor and we are taking the time to observe, critique, and weigh out the views and opinions throughout these books from "Christian" authors. I haven't even considered doing this with books, but I do it with movies and music with my students always weighing out the messages secular artists are singing or movies that draw controversies to the way we as Christians are to follow. Sound and Biblical doctrine straight from the Word of God.

Thank you for your review and keep up the good work! I only wish I had of read this sooner!

In Christ,
Joseph

[144. Debbie said the following at 10:59 AM on May 30:]

144

Question for those who have read the book: when you read the book, did you spend an equivalent amount of time in reading and studying God's Word or in prayer asking God to reveal and teach you His truth? Seems to me that the words Christian fiction is an oxymoron. There is no room in the heart of a Christian except for that which is true.

[145. BDB said the following at 12:01 PM on May 31:]

145

Debbie (#144) wrote:

>>did you spend an equivalent amount of time in reading and studying God's Word or in prayer asking God to reveal and teach you His truth?<<

Actually, yes, I had to do a fair amount of digging, since most people at my church don't understand why anyone is criticizing the book. Most of the theological objections are too unfamiliar for people who haven't studied theology to understand. The book seems to take a number of swipes at Reformed theology, but for those of us who didn't grow up in that tradition, it's not clear what the conflict is about.

In the final analysis, the central theological focus of The Shack is scriptural: if we want God to forgive us, we must forgive others.

It is not optional, it is a requirement:

Matthew 6:14-15

14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 18:35

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Mark 11:25-26

25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Luke 6:37

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

There are those who believe that forgiveness is not required until the person repents. Jesus DID say in Luke 7:3-4 that regarding when a "brother" sins. But that is one verse. There are more verses that expect us to forgive others if we want to be forgiven, regardless of whether or not that person repents.

In fact, Jesus' own example shows forgiveness before the perpetrator of evil repented:

Luke 23:34

34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”[a] And they divided His garments and cast lots.

And that is the central thrust of The Shack: how to get to a place where one can forgive those who have perpetrated a great evil, even if they haven't repented. The story is fictional, but designed to show some situation that is clearly evil.

I find it curious that the theological criticisms of The Shack tend to avoid discussing the forgiveness question. It's odd to omit that, because that is the part that people say results in a changed life - the book forces them to finally face - and let loose of - their unforgiveness for some hurt in the past.

[146. Cindy said the following at 6:07 PM on Jun 18:]

146

I loved the book and I am getting ready to read it for the third time...I read it last summer, then again in January and I'll be reading it after I finish Steinbeck's "East of Eden." I love Mr. Young's portrayal of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. I love the realness of the tragedy of Mack...it has become my favorite all time book.

I hoep the movie is good...though I am not sure if anyone or any visual portrayal will do this book justice.

[147. SamIAm said the following at 10:21 PM on Jul 16:]

147

Thank you so much for your review of this book. As I was reading parts of it, I knew that it was not sound doctrine and feared that it was a misrepresentation of God's truth. I am thankful for your time and confirmation. I think the author tried to create a feel good attitude about God without fully understanding who God is. I really was disturbed at several points while reading the book - Jesus discussed that he was not a Christian... that there was no judgement, only love, etc.
Praise God for His sovereignty!
God bless focus on the family!

[148. Mark said the following at 3:00 PM on Aug 5:]

148

Excellent review - you did a great job of pointing out the problems of this book.