But It’s Only Fiction
by Tom Neven on 07/01/2008 at 1:02 PM
My recent blog post about the book The Shack generated several responses that ran along the line that we shouldn't be too hard on the book because it is, after all, only fiction. These responses show a misunderstanding of both fiction and theology.
While fiction is by definition a story that doesn't pretend to be true, it still must adhere to certain basic rules. You can create any universe you like, but once you've created it, you must stick to its internal logic. If zurts are green and fly and jurts are blue and don't fly, you cannot willy-nilly switch these "facts" around, even if they are totally products of your imagination. And if for some reason in your story we see a blue jurt that is flying, you'd better have a good narrative explanation for why or else you've confused the reader.
A good example of this rule of fiction is seen in the Star Trek universe. Many a Star Trek staple such as the transporters violates the laws of physics. Credit the show's creators for knowing this and coming up with a work-around. My favorite example is the Heisenberg Compensators. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the transporters shouldn't work, since they could never disassemble and reassemble an object atom by atom. Hence the fictional compensators. When someone asked Star Trek technical advisor Michael Okuda how the compensators worked, he answered, "They work just fine, thank you." (For more such fun, I recommend The Physics of Star Trek.)
If you're going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.
So if you're going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he's supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don't care if he's trying to make God more "accessible." He's violated the rules of fiction.
More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he's saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to "improve" the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.
If a friend had a cold, abusive father, don't make the God of your story into a warm, loving female to compensate. Show your friend what a true father is like, using the example from Scripture. If your friend is hurting, don't comfort him with soothing lies, such as The Shack's assertion that God does not judge sin. Show him the God of all comfort found in Scripture, the God who was willing to save you from that judgment by sending his Son.
To those people who have snapped up copies of The Shack to give to non-Christian friends, you are doing them no favors. You are introducing them to a false god. You are inoculating them against the claims of the True God of Scripture. And more to the point, you're just giving them bad fiction.
1. Ronnica said the following at 1:23 PM on Jul 1
Thank you for this. Every moment that I spent reading The Shack gave me the willies. Ultimately it seemed that what Young does is make God out to be a super great human (and the relationships within the Trinity as merely the way a family is supposed to be) which was something he said he was fighting against.
2. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:46 PM on Jul 1
Excellent follow-up thoughts, Tom. From what I've heard and read, The Shack is yet another example of liberal Churchianity -- under the guise of evangelical Christianity -- offering "a different gospel -- not that there is another one," as Paul told the Galatians.
It seems the "god(s?)" of this book isn't a "supposal" of how God might appear in a parallel world, a la Aslan, or the representations of Christ in several other Narnia-like imitators among Christian fantasy. Rather, it's an imbalanced, all-love-all-the-time, neo-Universalist perversion of God -- "god" in man's image.
But if you're going to write fiction based in this universe, then you need to play by this universe's "rules," absolutely. Star Trek never pretended gravity didn't exist (though I think the nearly "omnipotent" Q played with physics constants from time to time) or that warp drive wasn't a nearly impossible concept -- as you pointed out, they came up with technical jargon to work around it.
Even in Harry Potter, with its decidely un-Christian mindset, plays by the rules of this universe when it is set here -- at Hogwarts and other magical locations, of course, other rules apply, but they always apply. Consistency, continuity, is key to realistic, believable fiction.
Yet both of these series assume an often-more-than-implied atheistic worldview. God is absent in Star Trek, and only love as an emotion is upheld as the highest virtue worth dying for in Harry Potter. Both of these fictitious worlds, though, bring me little difficulty in recommending them to others just because the stories are so good (and often reflect Christian values whether they like it or not). It's because they assume, a priori, God's nonexistence -- or absolutel non-involvement; same thing -- that they don't pose much threat to Christianity. Just as with fairy tales, such as "Cinderella" or "Peter Pan," you assume God's not involved and off you go.
However, any fiction that would purport to be Christian, yet flagrantly skew what is clearly revealed in the Bible about God in favor of some kind of shock-jock doctrinal tricks (a la "Hee hee hee! guess what, God is a girrr-rll; yes, I said 'God is a girrr-rrlll,' what're you going to do about it?") is in the very least, not helpful to the body of Christ, and furthermore, deceiving the Church and (even worse) nonbelievers about Who God is.
Paul and Christ before him both have strong words for those who pervert the Gospel and offer their own counterfeit (Galatians 1: 8-9). Now of course, this criticism will be inevitably be taken by many as just more pulpit-pounding legalistic fundamentalism. If so, they would be judging the Apostle who wrote this strong language, not the concerned Christ-followers who only cite this, and plead with them to stop twisting the Truth, and the image of God in others' sight, in the name of "creativity" (which is not at all "creative" anyway -- God is a girrrr-rrlll has been a hapless heretical cliché for centuries).
True art, in fiction, music, film and otherwise, honors Christ and His Truth. Otherwise, the "art" is at best a total waste of time, at worst, an abominable lie and dishonoring to the Creator.
3. Josh said the following at 2:37 PM on Jul 1
Thankfully, for those of us that didn't have a problem with "The Shack" we don't have to turn to the "its just fiction" argument :D
4. Read said the following at 2:41 PM on Jul 1
For those of you who want to criticize this book let be direct you to the publishers response. http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html
Let me just say that you ought to read the book before you comment. Honestly Tom, after reading your original post and then reading the book I am left to wonder if you have actually read the book for you self. I don't see how this book is any different from C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce or Chronicles of Narnia. It's an allegory. Just like I don't base my theology off of The Chronicles of Narnia I wouldn't base it off the Shack either. I base it off the Bible. I have about as much a problem with using a black woman as an allegorical representation of God as I do using a lion. Are you going to criticize Lewis for "changing God" to make him more "palatable"? Honestly I'm not even sure what parts of the book you are basing you assertions off of. Would you mind pointing to some specific places in the book as examples? Because really to me you are coming off and just regurgitating something one else's ideas about this book.
5. Tom Neven said the following at 3:40 PM on Jul 1
Read (#4)
I have read the book. I quote from it in several places. And the web site you steer us to doesn't address a single issue I raised in my original post. And indeed, part of that web site is false. They say they don't promote universalism, yet "Papa" explicitly says that Jesus is the "best" way to God. The very definition of the word best implies other ways. Not as good, but possible. The correct word would be only, which Jesus makes clear in John 14:6.
But more to the point, The Shack is not allegory. There's no symbolism in it, no having one thing stand in for another, which is what allegory is. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know the definition of allegory.
Pilgrim's Progress is allegory. Some of Jesus' parables (The Prodigal Son [Luke 15:11-31], parable of the sower [Matt. 3:3-9]) are allegories.
Even Lewis would deny that Narnia was allegorical. He called it a "supposal." And Tolkien insisted that his Lord of the Ring stories were not allegories. (He once said they were not Christian allegories, and many people seized on the words not Christian instead of allegories, implying that what Tolkien wrote was unChristian. Tolkien's intent was to refute the allegory mistake.)
As I said, Young has set this story in the real world using a theological concept found in Christian theology and then distorted it.
You say you wouldn't base your theology off of The Shack. Fine. But what about all those people out there who aren't as discerning as you? There are a lot of people getting a false teaching about God from this book. The fact that so many who claim the name of Christ are enthusiastically promoting this book is disturbing.
6. Jordan Peacock said the following at 3:43 PM on Jul 1
If you want to attack it on theological grounds, fire away.
But your attempt at guising your attack as 'protecting fiction' is pretty sketchy. Just because someone writes fiction 'based in the real world' that has strong elements of 'Christian theology' does not require them to adhere 100% to historical, theological or scientific fact in all cases. Most fiction writers don't; and that's why they're good.
Please be honest when critiquing a work; I realize you have theological objections to it and are not keen on seeing this 'bad theology' spread around. Nevertheless, if that is your critique, keep your objections to that. Don't build up straw men simply to pull them down, it's frustrating to read, even if you've got a good point.
Although I'll be honest; I'm not 100% sold on the bad theology angle either.
7. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:14 PM on Jul 1
Read, the differences between Narnia and this book are striking. The character of Aslan results from Lewis's supposal of "what if" Christ really did create and interact with a world called Narnia.
But unlike Shack, apparently, Aslan wonderfully parallels what we know about the real Christ from Scripture. He is both beautiful and terrible -- a divine, perfect Paradox.
Now, some Christians overextend on the idea of God being "terrible." But (sometimes in response to that), other people far overcorrect and present God (or a version thereof) as little more than just All Love, All the Time. Scripture doesn't leave us the option of this dichotomy. God is love, but He is also justice.
Others' deceptions aside, I for one (as a discerning Christ-follower) simply don't find any reason to read anything that skews the real God like this. How, exactly, would I benefit spiritually from this?
If others have learned and benefited spirituall about the real God from The Shack or something similar -- if by reading this book, God has somehow seemed bigger and more glorious -- then that would be a helpful argument to hear. Yet from what I have heard thus far, man's ideas of God, and not God Himself, is most glorified in the book.
8. Jacob said the following at 4:40 PM on Jul 1
Read,
The problem is that while you may not take your theology from Narnia, I have encountered people who do. One woman who thought that non-Christians go to heaven couldn't give scriptural support for that believe, but instead dogmatically referred back to the exchange between Aslan and the Calorman at the end of The Last Battle for justification. She wasn't just anyone either. If memory serves me right, this was a college-level instructor.
9. Rich said the following at 5:59 PM on Jul 1
Here is an excerpt from a recent blog post I wrote on the same subject...to get the point, you do not need to read the book, since it critiques not the book itself, but the "its just fiction!" response, which people say about many, many books:
Say I wanted to communicate to the world about God's wrath and justice (these are two biblical character qualities of God, just like His love.), so I wrote a fiction book where I depicted God as the serial killer guy from Saw. You read the book, and (rightfully) express concern (outrage would be more appropriate): 'Rich, I don't think God is like the guy from Saw. Yeah, I know He's just and He exhibits wrath on the unrepentant at the judgment seat, but the way you depict Him...well...That's not quite biblical.'
I respond, 'Relax. It's only fiction! I'm not writing a theological treatise! If you read the book, you will learn about God's justice and be blessed.'
How would you respond? No doubt, you'd respond with incredulity: even though its fiction, I'm communicating something about God, something deeply flawed. The fact that I'm writing fiction doesn't get me off the hook.
It's the same with The Shack. If I'm not off the hook in my flawed attempt at communicating about God's justice, why is Young off the hook when he makes a flawed attempt at communicating about other parts of God's nature, like His love or Immanence?
You see, we usually only express that blasé attitude when the book in question presents God in a soft light. Why the inconsistency?
I understand that fiction is a slightly more fluid genre than, say, theological papers in a professional journal. But that doesn't mean we give fiction authors a free ticket to ride when it comes to speaking about God, truth, and reality.
Far from being the "trash heap" of the written word, fiction is an incredibly powerful and important genre. Brian McLaren and others encapsulate their theological ideals in fiction partly because they understand such ideals will be easier for the rank and file to accept if they are captured in a story. For the most part, this is all well and good, but it has a down side: we can easily let our guard down.
Therefore, we should treat fiction as it is: an important and honorable genre worthy of the utmost consideration.
10. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:23 PM on Jul 1
I have about as much a problem with using a black woman as an allegorical representation of God as I do using a lion. Are you going to criticize Lewis for "changing God" to make him more "palatable"?
What's so hilarious about this statement is that GOD refers to himself as a lion. It didn't start with C.S. Lewis to depict God as a Lion.
"Lion of Judah" has been the sign of Christ since Genesis. And he's depicted as a Lion (among other creatures) in Revelations. That was not a unique thing that C.S. Lewis invented. That came from scripture.
Using a black woman to depict God was strictly from this guy's imagination =p
11. Anonymous said the following at 7:19 PM on Jul 1
The book has some weaknesses because it was written by a human, someone who struggles with really difficult things. But I have not read a book yet that doesn't have some theological weaknesses, other than the Bible, which is never interpreted 100% accurately by anyone who reads it.
Obviously, Dr. Ransom, you have not read the book, which is why your critique is silly. The point is not that God is a girl but that he is not who we think he is. God is a complete mystery, even to people who think they have him all figured out. The arguments made here are unconvincing to people who have been slapped in the face by religion and reality but have still found him to be true, although different from who they had originally assumed he was based on the traditions of men.
I'm so thankful he is bigger than who I was always taught he was. He never changes, but as we know him more deeply we see him more clearly and differently. And that should not be scary.
12. Nicole (from Boston) said the following at 7:44 PM on Jul 1
Before I say anything, let me first acknowledge that I have not read The Shack. Thus, any criticism that I might have is based on secondhand information. That said, I find I have no desire to read it, unless it's purely for the knowledge to discuss it intelligently. When I read in a review that the author portrayed God as a black woman named "Papa", any desire I had to read it was immediately turned off. The God of Scripture, the true God, is revealed as a "he" and as the Great I Am. Is God a Father? Yes, absolutely and wonderfully. Because of that fact, I find any female representation of God is a huge turn-off.
And in response to Read (#4), in Scripture, Jesus is referred to as "The Lion of Judah" so Lewis' portrayal of God as a lion, though allegorical, is still Scriptural. Just a thought.
13. Nicole said the following at 9:34 PM on Jul 1
I don't think its fair to compare two completely different works of fiction to one another in this way. Every story and every author is creative in a different way. I also feel its very arrogant to tell authors how they should or shouldn't be writing their own work. Its fine to dislike it for whatever reason you have. Don't recommend it if you don't like it, just don't get mean about it.(There are people out there who love their opinions way too much.) Ive met the author, he's from my neck of the woods in fact. The whole story came from him telling a story to his family. It's not like he wrote it just to make you angry. so what can I say other than maybe it would be a good idea to take a breath and not take everything sooooooooo seriously. just an idea.
14. Chris said the following at 9:38 PM on Jul 1
Tom writes:
If you're going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed.
Actually, since no one can prove that unicorns or magic squirrels do not exist, it's quite possible to include such things in fiction and still have it "conform to the rules of the real world". After all, there may be an as yet undiscovered law of physics that we cannot see unicorns or magic squirrels with our naked eyes. Or, to use a more relevant example, these unicorns or squirrels could be the designer(s) in ID in a fictional story.
15. Read said the following at 10:14 PM on Jul 1
Tom, I minored in English so I feel that I am on fairly solid ground with my literary terminology. An allegory is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal. Sounds like an apt description for The Shack. Early in the book, when Mack is speaking with Jesus, Jesus is explaining that everyone is seeking him, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and so forth. Mack asks specifically and Jesus responds specifically that He himself is the only way to God. I think you are arguing semantics when you say "best" implies that the author must have meant that he believes that there are other ways of reaching God. Also, realize that there may have been changes in the editing process. The publishers ultimate goal is to sell books and make money so why shouldn't they try and appeal to the largest audience?
Dr. Ransom, I very much respect your opinion, but let me pose this question to you. If you were teaching a class on a specific text and a student came to class without having read that text, do you believe he/she would have meaningful insight to add to the class discussion?
Would I hand this book to a non-believer or someone new to the faith? I'm not entirely sure. I have some friends who've used it as a means of starting conversations and witnessing to co-workers. I myself have been able to have some meaningful conversations with my book club members that have jump started a spiritual thought process they've never encountered before. However, for those of us who have our foundation built solidly on the rock of God's Word I don't see any harm in reading this work of fiction.
16. Jo said the following at 10:54 PM on Jul 1
Like I said in the other post, I haven't read the Shack.
But it strikes me that if CS Lewis were writing the Narnia stories now, he'd be harshly criticised by a lot of people on this blog. Greek gods on good terms with Aslan? Non-believers receiving 'salvation'? Clear Christian morals mixed in with other messages ("You're too old to come back to Narnia now")? If you take the stories as Christian-themed, there's a lot there to confuse. And why wouldn't we take them as Christian-themed, when Lewis was one of the most famous Christian writers ever?
You can say 'But he wasn't writing allegories' all you like, but I don't really see how that really differs from the 'It's just fiction' argument. Honestly, I think some of the commenters here would be shouting 'Heretic!' if the Narnia books were published today.
(NB: I love Narnia.)
17. obewan said the following at 8:21 AM on Jul 2
“>>A good example of this rule of fiction is seen in the Star Trek universe. Many a Star Trek staple such as the transporters violates the laws of physics.<<”
I actually read a PhD Thesis once on a theory of particle physics. The bottom line was that an experiment had somehow proven that it was possible for two atoms to have sub sub atomic particles mysteriously linked and not bound by time and space.
If a charge were applied to one particle, the corresponding other particle on the infinite far opposite side of the galaxy would reverse charges – and instantly with no travel time required.
The nuclear physicist theorized that if a person had infinite knowledge of particle physics, then a Star-Trek transporter beam would in effect be at least theoretically possible. Who knows, maybe that is how Angels travel. God has infinite knowledge for sure. I don’t expect to see a transporter beam any time soon though.
18. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 2
Rich, that was a superb example -- a perfect response, both substantively and rhetorically! Here's hoping the "emergent," hey-we're-just-having-a-conversation types will take heart, as well as mind.
Meanwhile, the response to Shack criticisms, linked above, reflects much of the same attempts at false dichotomy and straw-man construction common to many who react against reminders of what's in Scripture -- even Grace-based reminders.
It seems that The Shack's defender, here, in his zeal to defend what he feels is a righteous cause -- decides that everyone else has too much zeal to defend a righteous cause, and oddly, lashes out in a very stringent, "fundamentalist" way against those who are supposedly stringent and fundamentalist.
It seems the writer is clinging to a simple view of God while ignoring the complexity of divine paradoxes (love/wrath, knowable/mysterious, personal/transcendent) -- the very same error that more-"orthodox" Christ-followers are accused of making.
Note the false dichotomy, here -- if you criticize The Shack for being un-Biblical, that simply must mean we demand that an author sprinkle chapter-and-verse in a novel. This is a simplistic, straw-man approach to pretend that any criticism is this absurd. This is simply more bad rhetorical technique -- I wonder exactly how many nasty letters received by The Shack's publishers have contended that God is a white European male. Perhaps they have contended that He is definitely male, based solely on the flimsy evidence offered by, well, the Book He wrote, that He is, in fact, well ... male. ;-)Just because people have amused, annoyed, head-shaking qualms -- to say the least -- about portraying God as a girl (again, it's rather clichéd trick anyway, to sing-song that "God is a girrr-rrlll" merely in an attempt to rile "fundie" Biblical Christians) doesn't mean I ascribe Him Euro-centric WASP characteristics.
And frankly, contrary to Christina's criticisms, I wouldn't even give much credit to the notion of portraying God as a black woman being "original." It's sort of like crediting The Da Vinci Code for being a creative, fast-moving yarn ... it wasn't, and neither was it that original; for some reason or other, it just found a roaring readership where others did not.
Ultimately, if The Shack were to help readers understand and give glory to the God of the Bible, that's great. But from what I've heard from reasonable, non-fundie critics, I just don't see how it could benefit me spiritually -- it would be like simply reading my ABCs instead of the articles and novels I'm now capable of comprehending. But it's worse than that: apparently, in this simplified spiritual alphabet, the letters just aren't written down right -- they're backward, drawn incorrectly, or some left out entirely, or substituted with made-up symbols.
Those who already know the real "alphabet" basics -- i.e., the true nature of God and His Truth -- will not really be corrupted by books like this, just annoyed, bothered and confused, at least because of the wasted time, but mostly at the inevitable negative results of those who are being taught to think along these un-Biblical ways.
Again, Scripture itself (not just all them redneck legalistic pulpit-pounding, hemline-measuring KJV-only fundies! ;-) )has strong words for those who promote a false "gospel" and a different version of Jesus -- and especially those who teach others, who are held to much greater account.
But if they're reflexively going to ascribe nefarious, legalistic, un-Gracious motives to their critics, despite any loving and pleading demeneanor that accompanies criticism, there's not much we can do. ...
19. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:18 AM on Jul 2
Briefly I'll address the following, which was posted while I had been working on my recent comment.
Anonymous, the you-haven't-read-it-so-you-can't-criticize concept is often employed in order to duck otherwise well-assembled objections, such as those found on this page -- and which you haven't addressed. Sometimes it's effective, and sometimes not -- sometimes not, because those of us who haven't read it are repeating the objections of those who have so it's still informed testimony.
This is similar to what I've heard before -- but again, it's a false dichotomy. Some people, especially in postmodern-influenced Western civ, seem to think that just because we don't know everything about God, that means we can't know anything for sure. Furthermore, this seems to them the more humble way to approach understanding God; they claim that anyone who says "this is what God is like" is therefore claiming to have God "all figured out" -- a rather simplistic and straw-man attempt.
But that is another false dichotomy. God is infinite and ultimately not able to be fully understood. But He has revealed parts of Himself in the Word, in which He has said, repeatedly, that He is, in fact, a He.
Therefore, God is not a "complete mystery," and there are parts of Him that we have figured out -- though not because of anything we have done, but because we have been blessed to receive His written revelation about Himself in His Word.
How, then, could it be construed as "humility" to ignore what He has said, in favor of our own views? I might as well fail to acknowledge or even read what you have said, because then I might actually think I could understand your views and that would be "arrogant." No, instead it would be arrogant for me to ignore your written words and decide that I, and some of my friends in a "conversation," could figure out your views and your nature on our own -- though perhaps we might say that we have high regard for your own words about, well, yourself.
No, true humility is achieved when we're not thinking about ourselves and our own humility (which always backfires -- "By Jove, I'm being humble!" as Lewis wrote). Instead, we're focusing on God and what He has told us about Himself. We haven't deciphered His "code" on our own; everything we have is what He has given us. It is all from Him, from His Grace, and for His glory.
This is what will keep us truly humble and dependent on Him -- not closing our eyes and ears to what He has said and thus elevating our own views about Him above His own Word about Himself.
20. Nina Utterback said the following at 12:48 PM on Jul 2
I absolutely loved the book. What a
warm sense of the loving God we all have who just wants to have that personal relationship with all of us.
I believe that this book will touch many who have struggled with there painful past and there misconceptions of God and what he desires from us. Religion has hurt so many people we as christians need to stop arguing about anything that brings the lost and hurt to our lord jesus christ. I can only imiagine him sheding a tear for those who tear down the workers in the field who are trying to bring his sheep closer to him.
Nina
21. Sarah P. said the following at 12:49 PM on Jul 2
It's important to take this book seriously because it has (somehow) become so influential. Actually, all the hooplah reminds me of when the movie The Blair Witch Project was in its heyday. I saw the thing, and was not overly impressed (although that might have been because I spent half the time with my eyes closed and head between my knees thanks to motion sickness).
I'm not sure the "internal consistencies of the world" argument holds up, however. I don't get the feel from reading The Shack that Mack is living in our world; the entire story has an odd, dreamy sensation to it. Rather, I would say it is the closeness to our reality that makes the book dangerous. It's just unrealistic enough to say, "Oh, it's just a story," but it is close enough that the reader can easily carry away false ideas about God nonetheless. To me, I don't see a black-and-white its-of-the-Devil, but I do see the book as a dark shade of grey, to be handled with caution.
Not to mention that it is terribly overwritten. My internal editor kept stopping me in order to chop out entire sentences and paragraphs. :P
22. brx said the following at 1:00 PM on Jul 2
Tom (#5),
Wow, your passion for truth and theological correctness is strong! I admire the way you can explain your arguments clearly with few words. And though I find no logical errors in your criticisms of "The Shack", something was nagging me as I read the second post on the subject and some of the responses.
It became more clear what was bothering me when I read this statement "But what about all those people out there who aren't as discerning as you?"
It sounds like you think most other people are stupid. More importantly, that they are not able to be found by God without the aid of theological arguers such as yourself. It kind of implies that your God is too small to handle revelation of orthodoxy along their way.
Because William Young is a Christian and "The Shack" is much about his personal faith journey (which has not ended), I'm willing to bet that it will lead many more people _to_ Christ than it will lead astray.
Grace, peace & adventure with a big God...
23. DannieA said the following at 1:05 PM on Jul 2
after reading the last blog on 'the shack' and this one, I guess one question I have is this
...and the point is?
meaning, the book is already published, it's not "going back" so to speak....you can choose to like it or not, but in essence it's just like any other book in Barnes and Nobles....on the shelf....with people either choosing to buy it or bypassing it.
24. Faith said the following at 1:34 PM on Jul 2
Thanks for these posts! I appreciate them greatly.
25. Sylvia said the following at 1:38 PM on Jul 2
#11. I think that there is an enormous difference between God being a "complete mystery" and us not having him "all figured out"
God chose to reveal Himself to us through His word. We have a responsibility to take seriously that which he gave us.
In John 15:14 and 15 Jesus says:
"You are my friends if you do what I command. *I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
I don't think that the fact that there is so much more to God than we can perceive here on earth gives us permission to ignore, or contradict that which the Lord has purposely revealed to us.
On the contrary, I think its presumptuous to assume that we HAVE some knowledge beyond what He has chosen to reveal to us, and that we have a right or obligation to pass that along when what people need is the plain and simple Gospel which God has given.
26. Tom Neven said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 2
brx (#22)
Thanks for your comments. No, I don't think other people are stupid, nor do I consider myself smarter. I do take seriously, though, the many warnings in Scripture to beware of false teachings and to ensure correct doctrine. If I see something wrong, I would be remiss not to mention it. I must also follow the scriptural teaching that some people are ready only for milk and some for meat. Knowing that some are less advanced in the knowledge (that does not mean they are stupid), I must take this into account.
You say that I seem to believe that some people "are not able to be found by God without the aid of theological arguers such as yourself." I am firmly persuaded that God can save anyone He chooses to save, but what you're saying sounds suspiciously like those who argue that there's no need to preach the Gospel or evangelize since God will save everyone He wants to save anyway.
This misses the apostle Paul's counsel in Romans 10:14-15.
The Shack phenomenon also brings to mind something else Paul says a little earlier: "For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge" (Romans 10:2).
27. brx said the following at 7:12 PM on Jul 2
Re Tom (#26),
Thanks for the response and clarification on your position.
Please allow me to clarify regarding your statement: "...but what you're saying sounds suspiciously like those who argue that there's no need to preach the Gospel or evangelize since God will save everyone He wants to save anyway." While I would not go to that extreme, I have come to realize there are times when I should resist putting on the 'Bible Answer-man cape' and instead, just listen and encourage.
For example, a classic senario is that I see a college student who hasn't been to our college group in a couple years. I say hello, ask what's been going on in her life over the last couple years and slowly she begins to open up about some faith stuggles she's been having after taking a certain philosphy course. A well-meaning (but insecure) sister-in-Christ stops by, overhears, and proceeds to jump in with doctrinal corrections and Bible verses. Needless to say, that shut down the whole conversation pretty quick as the restless student looked for the fastest and most gracious exit. -- never saw her again.
I've also fallen into many apologetic discussions that quickly degenerate to arguments with my athiest friends. I finally realized that's a big trap laid by the Enemy. As I listened to them and paid more attention, I noticed my friends didn't need good apologetic arguments; they were wounded and lonely and bitter and needed tangible love from friends with the light of Christ.
I agree we need to be discerning about false teaching. However, I think there's room to disagree regarding what is teaching and what is circumventing a wall in order to open up a positive dialog to discover Truth.
Grace, peace & adventure
28. Chris Pack said the following at 12:11 PM on Jul 3
I have read "The Shack" twice and was greatly blessed by it. I have also read all of the posts on the second blog and most on the first. I even contributed to the first a time or two. This contribution (dare I label it as such) will be my first on this blog, and maybe my last.
It seems to me that those of us who have in some way been blessed by this book are being referred to as...
1) following false gods
2) following a different gospel
3) following a man-made image of God
4) not as discerning
5) not ready for meat
6) less advanced in knowledge
I confess that I have no idea where to begin in responding to all of these references other than to say that I love Jesus more deeply as a result of reading this book. My relationship with Him has grown. I no longer approach Christ (or other relationships) out of expectation, obligation, or responsibility, and the Spirit used Young's work to minister to me in that sense. I know freedom in Christ that I have never before known as a result of reading "The Shack". The Spirit communicated to me deeply in these respects while reading it, so much so that I read it again.
So, where does that leave me when I read the references made of those who have anything positive to say about the book? Well...I guess I would say thank you. I have gained Christ as I have died to self (especially the desire to defend myself) with the reading of each such comment.
That said...I do have a few things to offer here. I understand that in doing so my thoughts will be obliterated, and my character likely assassinated, yet I offer them anyway. I'm certain that the reality of all those labels will be shown by the weakness of my offering.
It seems to me that the life of Christ, as communicated in the Bible we all know and love - a life which fully showed us the what the Father is like, was not a life focused on judgment. I see quite the opposite in many instances, but I never fail to know that Christ will ultimately judge because I have the whole story. It seems to me that "Papa" in "The Shack" would prefer to redeem rather than punish. That certainly does not mean that if Young's story continued on to the end of all things that "Papa" would not ultimately judge sin. It seems to be a desire of "Papa's" heart, the same as God desires that none would perish. I have no trouble with this information in reading the book. I do not think it does harm to God's character. Hmmm...does that make me a heretic? I'm not asking anyone else to see it as I do...just offering this point of view.
Second, God is spirit. The Scriptures tell us so. I seem to recall that the book might have even made that point, though I don't recall for certain and am too pressed for time to dig it up. I do recall reading some points made here that God would not change His nature for us to see/understand Him but instead changes us. I have a couple of questions here so please bring on the meat... 1) Why did God appear to Abraham as a man in the Old Testament writings? If God is, in fact, a spirit, then wouldn't this qualify as changing natures, even if He does refer to Himself as He? 2) Why did the Son, who eternally existed - certainly not as a man, come as a man? The Creator entered the creation. Hmmm. I guess it comes down to the definition of "nature", but I'm not understanding the problem here. Again...call me a heretic...I'm ok with God appearing to Mack as a female in order for Mack to know Him better and be healed in his heart. I bet God's relieved that I'm ok with it. The last point i'll make here is that the Christian life is an exchanged life, not a changed life, but I guess I would just be spitting up milk if I mentioned that.
Finally, it seems to me that some of what I've read in this forum implies a couple of things about God. 1) God cannot touch hearts through an imperfect book. I don't think this has been blatantly said, but could be wrong. However, it certainly seems to be implied. Just look at the labels listed above. If I say that God ministered to me through the book, just apply any of those. I know it's been said here before, but how big is our God really? Do we have Him in some box that would restrict His revelation of Himself to us in such a way? 2) God needs my doctrine to be perfect before I approach Him. Again, this is more implied than stated, but it seems that I must have exactly the right picture of God in order to approach Him. If that's the case then how dare I ever approach Him as my picture of our great and glorious God is ever growing and changing? Thanks be to God for the grace that is Jesus Christ!
29. Chris Pack said the following at 1:52 PM on Jul 3
Oh...and as I was eating lunch I remembered one additional point on the God changing natures thing. Didn't He also appear as a burning bush, pillar of fire, etc., etc., etc.? Last time I checked...burning bushes and pillars of fire were gender neutral...God shouldn't do His character harm like that.
30. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:19 PM on Jul 3
brx, I can certainly follow and identify with what you're saying, yet I urge you not to overcorrect into an opposite extreme of evangelism.
Just as a cookie-cutter approach to tossing apologetics arguments at non-Christian friends doesn't always work, neither does a you're-hurting-and-lonely approach all the time.
Instead, most often a combination of both "methods" is warranted -- you might be just showing the love and care of Christ to someone on one day or week, and the next you might be Graciously, yet truthfully, "destroy[ing] arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10: 5).
As Biblical Christ-followers, we can't fully "buy into" one "method" or another. Scripture never gives us a one-size-fits-all program for witnessing to others. Like God Himself, we can be both loving and speaking the Truth to others -- even the tough Truths.
(I'll be addressing some other elements of this fascinating discussion in Tom Neven's next post.)
31. Phoebe said the following at 7:29 PM on Jul 5
Great point, Rich. (#9)
I'd like to ask why is it necessary to reinvent the being of God as Mr. Young has done? Is the scriptural image of God as male insufficient? I know that God transcends male and female and is the source of both, but in Scripture he wants us to think of him as Father and as Jesus the Son, not as Papa-the-mother. Moreover, He wants us to think of Him as ONE. He is ONE person and THREE persons. The book's portrayal of just THREE is very dangerous.
Again, why is Mr. Young's approach so good and so helpful to help us think of God in a "new" way? What does this imply about the sufficiency of scripture?
32. Leah said the following at 9:55 PM on Jul 5
"It's only fiction"... people said that about the da Vinci Code too. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but even though it was fiction, as Dan Brown himself readily admitted, people still decided they liked the whole conspiracy theory and decided that htey'd believe it.
Just because something is fiction doesn't mean that, given the opportunity to believe AGAINST Christianity, people won't.
33. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:56 AM on Jul 8
That Da Vinci Code guy never claimed his conspiracy stuff was fiction. Only the parts with the boring, one-dimensional wimpy characters were admittedly fiction. The Jesus-ran-off-to-France-with-Mary-Magdalene-and-had-children-and-the-big-bad-Church-covered-it-up premise wasn't fiction to him -- he said so in the book's forward. Just FYI. ;-)
Meanwhile -- hmm. Perhaps it's completely unrelated to the controversy in these comments, but Tim Challies' fantastic review of The Shack an expanded version of his original article on his own site, is now posted.
34. widge44 said the following at 11:56 PM on Jul 10
It is a good exercise to have read the various opinions on this blog, and I appreciate all of the contributions and the dialogue. I consider myself well grounded in biblical theology, especially regarding God's revelation of Himself as masculine, never feminine. But that didn't keep me from being thoroughly blessed in reading The Shack. Before reading it, I read most of the 1, 2 and 3 star reviews of the book on Amazon and avoided reading the 4 or 5 star ratings (when there were about 300 total). So, I wasn't swept away by overly enthusiastic readers.
After reading the book, I searched the internet for information about the writer. It's interesting to me that none of the bloggers I have read so far (positive or negative) have investigated the author enough to know that he doesn't go by his first name, William, but, rather, his middle name, Paul.
I was so moved by The Shack, that I wanted to know more about the author and his own story because I was certain that it informed his creative work. In that investigation, I've listened to several interviews of the author on reputable websites, and I want to suggest that others do the same as they process the phenomenon of this book.
I want to also bear witness to the fact that in my circle of relationships, much healing and hope has been generated in the reading of The Shack. And this mostly among Christians. And many conversations have happened that otherwise would not have occurred.
The author never set out to write a best seller. I think people are just hungry to hear about the love of God. Yes, love and justice are two sides of the same coin, but I think people have the judgment part down pretty well.
35. Steve said the following at 5:09 PM on Jul 11
Widget,
You have it down. Paul wrote this as an expression of his own painful journey from the sin of blaming God as a God of Judgement of innocents, which some-how he was caught up in. (If anyone has not delved deeply into the effects of abuse on the human soul, they shouldn't comment here). It was a journey to find a the God he knew in one way only and who revealed himself in a much different way. Fear of God can drive you to many things, even doing the "work of the Kingdom" , and yet find out on that day that you never "knew" him and he never "knew you. (Matthew 7) You can gain much insight from his thoughtful blogs and the bit he shares about this journey to this place of understanding. I find the Shack most helpful for believers who have been wounded deeply by sins of abuse and have blamed God or are angry at God in their heart and closed their soul to risk the pain of love again. this book gives them hope and a much broader focus of God ever-wider , longer and more eternal definition of Love
36. Angie said the following at 10:21 PM on Aug 31
I was very disappointed in this book.
Yes, it's fiction. But we can't mix
bad theology in a book and call it good because it portrays God as loving. Whenever we question whether
something is good or bad, one question
should be asked does it line up with
the Word of God? The Shack states
God & Jesus both bore the marks of
the crucifiction, Jesus could do no miracles apart from God because he was
fully human and implies any of us can fully accept God and do the works Jesus did. It implies Jesus was only
human and he was just the first human
to fully accept God. It also says
to ask what would Jesus do is silly, that Jesus wasn't put here to be our example? He is our example, we are to become more and more like Him and strive to be holy. When the church begins embracing books like this that
water down the foundations of the gospel the church is headed in a direction that displeases God. We need to put down the fiction and get a firm grip on SOUND BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. The Chronicles of Narnia can in no way be compared to The Shack. God never showed up in the Bible in the form of a woman, black,
white, asian, or otherwise. The Bible calls Him the Lion of Judah. The Shack also has Jesus stating my followers are Muslim, Jew, Republican,
Democrat etc. and he doesn't want to make them Christians? This implies we are all no matter if we accept Jesus going to the same heaven? I am tired of reading these high brow commentaries about how if you didn't like the Shack, you are spiritually
young in your walk etc. or you aren't very intelligent because you can't see that it is a work of fiction and it means this or that. I am very well read and can enjoy works of fiction, but this book mixes in false theology with Christianity so therefore I can't in any way endorse this book. If you wrote a book about the Koran like this Muslims would be rioting in the streets! Wake up lukewarm church and arise to hear sound doctrine.
37. Michelle said the following at 10:45 AM on Sep 14
It is not loving nor does it promote true healing to inaccurately portray the reality of who God has said he is. False teachings are condemned without excuse in the Bible. The "it's only fiction" argument doesn't hold water when so many people have stated that they don't see anything Biblically inaccurate in this book. If this book has helped people draw closer to "God", then their salvation is in question.
38. Belle said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 4
I only made it to the 14th chapter...I could take no more of the false representations of God.
When I told my friend who suggested this book my concerns, I became judgmental and a hypocrite. She said so many had been lead to Jesus through this book.
Read John 1:14...it is grace AND TRUTH.
They cannot know the real God through this book. If it leads them to the Bible and they discover the REAL truth then great. But this book is like Oprah saying she is a Christian and leading them in non truths.
39. Dr. Harper said the following at 8:15 AM on Dec 29
After reading the shack book and having a personal interview with the shack author Paul Young, I'm convinced that the characters playing the trinity in his book are actually demons who are attempting to redefine the nature of God. The shack book is more dangerous than the book of mormon.
How disappointing that many people claiming to be christians lack discernment - a common characteristic in the end times ( a falling away of the faith ).
40. Ron Livesay said the following at 5:26 PM on Mar 16
I have written a review of The Shack and posted it on my blog. I did this in order to prepare myself for the inevitable questions from my adult Sunday school class and also from members of my family. It is found at
http://buffalonoise.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-of-shack.html