Can God Use a Flawed Book?
by Tom Neven on 07/03/2008 at 3:01 PM
At risk of severely flogging a dying horse, I believe the subject of The Shack needs more comment. Readers such as brx and Chris Pack (and others too numerous to name) have raised excellent points, which I'll try to address here rather than in piecemeal comments.
Can God Use a Flawed Book to Bring Glory to Himself? If God uses flawed humans to accomplish His will, it's a pretty safe bet to say He can do the same with a flawed book. In fact, shortly after becoming a Christian, I read a book that I found helpful at the time that I would never recommend to a new believer today. God used it despite its flaws, but I would never deliberately introduce those flaws to someone else now that I know better.
Does Our Theology Have to Be Perfect Before God Will Save Us? Of course not. In fact, no one's theology is anywhere near perfect when God saves him, since Scripture makes clear that an unbelieving world cannot see the truth until God reveals it to him. Your knowledge of chemistry doesn't have to be perfect before beginning a chemistry class, either, but woe to the knowledgeable teacher who knowingly allows bad chemistry to be taught to novices. Why do we think it's any different when it comes to matters of God?
Do We Have to Insist on Perfect Theology When Trying to Reach Unbelievers? Again, of course not. In fact, I am friends with a young man who, depending on the day or week, confesses Christ as Lord and Savior one minute and then posits all sorts of New Agey hokum the next. The best thing I can do is answer his questions as best as possible, correct him lovingly (and choosing very carefully which battles I even want to fight), but most important, remain his friend.
When talking to someone who is asking sincere questions, I am not going to throw the five points of Calvinism at him. I am not going to recite the Nicene Creed or a 10-part acrostic sermon on the Gospel of John. But if he insists on something that is incorrect, I will correct him. I will point to Scripture or, if necessary, the wisdom of teachers before me, to guide him into truth as best I can.
Significantly, no one actually used theological arguments to object to what I've written. Some were emotional responses, some speculative, some snarky, but many were along the lines that I should just lighten up.
I will not gainsay anyone's experience of reading this book. In fact, I encourage mature, discerning believers to read it so they know what it says. But in evaluating The Shack I will always do so in light of what God has already chosen to reveal about himself to us: the Bible. In that light, The Shack is severely deficient.
In short, if a starving person comes to you for food, will you give him a stone, or will you give him bread? If a malnourished person comes to you, will you give him a Twinkie, or good nutritious food?
1. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:44 PM on Jul 3
Tom: I guess it depends on one's purpose for reading the fiction, and whether one recognizes it as fiction and not authoritative, as opposed to Scripture which is not fiction and very authoritative.
I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings series. In spite of the Pagan overtones in the books. Are there truths about human struggle in that series? Absolutely. Is it good theology? I would say no.
A couple years ago, I read The Da Vinci Code. It was worthless from a theological and scholarship standpoint. I remember opining about it:
As for The Shack, honestly I have not read it. My tastes in fiction have changed over the years, and today I'm more of a Clancy fan.
If nothing else, your reviews--whether one agrees or disagrees with them--provide a framework for Christians to evaluate things: you evaluate human experience with respect to Scripture, not Scripture with respect to human experience.
2. Rachael said the following at 8:05 PM on Jul 3
re: the second question...
It's so interesting how people's theology changes....my mom was telling me about a couple things she said years ago, when she was in her 20s or something (when she was a Christian, but she came to Christ later in life). One of the things was absolutely totally off from what she believes now and has believed for I assume many years. So interesting! And neat to think that I'll grow (hopefully) in the next decades if it is in the plan for me to have decades to go...so cool to think I could grow. And my theology is different than what it was when I was a kid. Wonder what it'll be in 20 years :). Lots to learn. Lots of room for growth and retention.
3. Liz said the following at 9:22 PM on Jul 3
Of course He can use a flawed book. Goodness gracious, the Bible, "technically" is flawed in its translation... (of course I'm sure it's very very close), but God uses it.
Moreso, my mother came to Christ through a movie/musical deemed as horrifically blasphemes: Jesus Christ Superstart.
It would be blasphemes to think that God can't use anything He wants for His glory. If we are Christians, we believe in the supernatural...so it's time we believe it fully, or it'd be a bit difficult to comprehend how God works.
4. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:50 PM on Jul 3
That has been my impression throughout the comments of the previous post as well -- coupled with the assertion (heavily implied, anyway) that if a commentator hasn't read the book, then he/she can't be at all informed on it. However, that brings two counter-objections:
1) Neither I nor many others here are remarking on the book or its characters (Mack?) anyway. Instead, it's the reactions from those who defend the book that are rebut-able.
2) As per offering criticisms of The Shack itself, though I have not read it, I do have the "testimony" of those I trust who have read it. The same is true of other media offerings I have not personally read or seen -- for example, nothing, rhetorically, is to prevent me from citing as an authority on the matter Plugged In reviews of books or films I'd prefer to avoid based on their detailed discernments.
And yet the attempts to downplay opposing views seems to be not so much "you haven't read the book and you misunderstand it, as I can clearly show you here and here and here; and here's what it really says," but instead, "you haven't read the book, so you really can't say anything anyway" (I have not seen this specific argument made here, per se, but it's close).
As Tom said, the objections (thus far, anyway) have been emotional: God really changed me through the book; I've really seen Him in a light I haven't before, and so on.
To that I can personally relate. Similar to Tom's account, during my teenage years I became quite enamored by an end-times novel series, (which I won't name), authored by two evangelical writers (whom I also won't name), of a dozen titles (followed up by three prequels and one especially horrid sequel). These novels were also of a certain eschatological persuasion that I won't name, except to say that it wasn't mid- or post-anything.
They were also of a certain theological bent that I can best describe as Definitely Not Reformed. Even God's judgments on sinful souls during the seven-year Tribulation were portrayed more as "God is trying to get your attention" instead of "God is nuking you because you're evil," as Revelation would clearly say (even in the perspective of that end-times view). (The series' characters, by the way, even remarked upon this fact of God's judgment, yet they directly decided to talk more about His mercy and love instead, which seems interesting when demons are stinging everyone and the oceans are turning to blood at the same time.)
As a Christ-follower, I can still enjoy these novels (yes, even as one of those Young-Restless-Reformed guys; and I might be the only one). That's because first, they're still kinda fun, and second, they're part of my recent "religious heritage" and helped increase my interest in writing and particularly fiction.
However, knowing what I know now, I am not going to act as though this series is an example of supreme and creative Christ-honoring literature, or the best portrayal of God's true nature and solid doctrine about the end times or otherwise. I would also definitely not recommend them to new believers, much less nonbelievers, as a great example of Scripture-based storytelling.
There is so much better fiction out there that encapsulates God's true nature, balancing His paradoxical attributes as best can be done this side of Heaven (love/wrath, Grace/justice, infinite/knowable, and so on). Why not advocate these stories rather than one that will surely continue to confuse, if not deceive, so many readers?
Meanwhile, Rich's point in response to the last post, about what this well-it's-only-fiction argument would look in reverse to The Shack's defenders, remains un-addressed. I'd be interested to hear Shack advocates' responses to this -- the fact that overstressing God's judgment and wrath in fiction would bring criticism, and much more so if His love and Grace were not only minimized, but ignored:
5. Vonda said the following at 6:24 AM on Jul 4
I would like to comment on your last 2 questions.If someone came to me starving,I surely think I'd give them whatever bread or milk or other food in my house,but because I cannot imagine anyone showing up in my small town needing a nutritious meal it is hard for me to imagine that the people who really need to hear the gospel of Jesus in the wosrt kind of way,like here in good ole USA,drug addicts and such would they even be open to reading such a book or something else which could only help to directy them on the right path in life?? Sadly I think if we don't pray real hard for those stiffnecked people to be softened up and open to the gospel our efforts to save them may be futile at best.
6. Laura Leigh Stanlake said the following at 7:44 AM on Jul 4
I agree that God can and does use flawed humanity and flawed everything.
I loved The Shack with flaws and all.
Flaws?? ...the expression of the trinity...very iffy
Not flawed? ...are people saying you don't have to forgive God because he does no wrong? THAT idea is short-sighted. I have often had to forgive others when things didn't go my way!
7. BDB said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 5
The OP wrote:
>>If a malnourished person comes to you, will you give him a Twinkie, or good nutritious food?<<
I'd give him:
- A 50kg bag of rice
- Some multivitimins
- De-worming medication
But that's just me...
8. Craig said the following at 11:57 AM on Jul 5
Not sure Calvinism should be in the same category as the Nicene Creed...not everybody is "reformed," you know....
9. keightie said the following at 9:26 AM on Jul 6
Personally, I would rather not build a church on a trampoline OR a pile of bricks that man set up to bring God closer to himself artificially (Babel, anyone?)
MY hope is built on nothing less
than Jesus and his righteousness
I dare not trust the sweetest frame
but wholly lean on Jesus' name
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand
All other ground is sinking sand.
10. Chris Pack said the following at 12:41 PM on Jul 7
Well, I suppose it shouldn't be strange to me to hear the Spirit of God moving folks classified as an "emotional response" since I used to do the the same. I suppose the Holy Spirit is a bit too subjective for some. He was for me a few years ago. Yet, it's the objective scriptures that tell us of His life in us. Some things you just can't learn in seminary - I know because I went.
Tom, I appreciate your response. I also apologize if I seemed irritable - or "snarky" as you put it. I was not irritated so I certainly did not mean to communicate in such a way. There is much labeling that has happened in these multiple forums and I felt need to draw attention to it so that brothers and sisters aren't alienated for seeing things differently than Dr. Ransom and you. It's much like the 2/5 of democrats who are born again Christians that Barna has identified - they are easily alienated in evangelical churches today because they don't typically vote for "God's candidate".
I see that you believe that "no one actually used theological arguments to object to what written." I would disagree with that statement and submit to you that perhaps you feel that way because those who like the book haven't agreed with you yet - therefore their arguments could not be theological because you have the right theology. I think they simply have a different theology - one that doesn't have much weight as far as you are concerned. One that is perhaps not scriptural in your eyes. To them it is very scriptural. A common thread in both the theology of Tom Neven and the theology of those who like "The Shack" is a love for Jesus Christ. May we never forget that.
I would say to you that there is nothing wrong in what you are writing. The only thing that seems wrong to me is that those who have experienced God in some way by this book are being treated in these multiple forums as if something is deficient in their faith. It is not nearly as edifying as you, and perhaps others, would like to believe that it is. All of the arguments - all of your tight theology - means nothing without love. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are doing it out of love, but the fruit might suggest otherwise. Perhaps you should reread some of what you and Dr. Ransom have said to others in these forums. Yes...love is tough sometimes...but love would not spit on someone saying they love Jesus more as a result of reading a book.
What's funny to me is that I haven't heard a single person argue with you that they now follow a God who doesn't judge sin or that they now see God as female or all of these things that seem such a concern to you for those who have read the book. What I have heard is that people were blessed in their relationship with the Lord. I know many who have read and enjoyed the book, and none came away following some false god. All came away with a better relationship with Jesus Christ. In my mind that's the best theological argument that someone can make. "I love Jesus more as a result of what just happened." Man...that's awesome!
So...this post will be my last. I can really offer nothing else. God bless to everyone here. May you know the Lord more deeply and intimately every moment. Blessings!
11. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:19 AM on Jul 8
Chris Pack, perhaps nothing typed here will be perceived as a Gracious rebuttal, or as an acknowledgement that regardless of the profound disagreement with much of what you've said, I still find your writing’s demeanor and style very humble. It seems clear that you believe what you're saying — it’s just that what you're saying doesn't hold up Biblically. And while it may not spiritually harm you ultimately and personally, inevitably it will cause damage to others.
As has been noted frequently in these two posts, the same is true for certain wishy-washy books that devalue what God has already told us in the Bible, either fiction or (attempted) nonfiction.
Chris, no one here (that I have seen) is discounting emotional reactions altogether.
Worship involves emotional reactions; delighting in God and His Word involves emotional reactions; fellowship with other believers involves emotional reactions. These bring glory to God and the Spirit can speak in these.
His Truths can even be echoed in a book, film or television program whose worldview is not explicitly Christian. Last week, for example, I had an ”emotional reaction” when during a Star Trek: Voyager episode, one character underwent a Native American-style “vision,” in which he communicated with his dead father (hardly spiritually valid, that!). However, his father was nevertheless upholding an incredibly Christian view of unborn children’s sanctity of life — even for unborn children fathered by rape!
But would you affirm or deny that the Spirit will speak to people in something that clearly contradicts the Word He has already inspired? Would you affirm or deny that The Shack contains overtly anti-Biblical messages and advocates a different gospel, a different God?
I have asked before whether anyone can correct me on my (and others’) understanding of the book’s views; instead, responses have generally been “you need to read the book first.” Very well, then, to those of you who have read the book: where is my misunderstanding? How is what the author presents of God and spiritual truth actually aligned with Scripture’s presentation of the same?
Meanwhile, commentator Rich's argument from before, about how many would rightly oppose a book presenting God as only a wrathful, serial killer and could be told “it’s just a story,” yet remains unanswered.
I’ll take it a bit further: what if such a fictitious presentation of God did exist, and others rightfully opposed it, and were rebutted not only with the “argument” that Hey, it's only fiction, we're just having a conversation here; don’t worry, but with the notion going something like this:
If you have an issue with portraying God as solely a vengeful serial killer, you're quenching the Spirit. People’s lives are being changed by this. They’re seeing God in a whole new way — instead of only a loving, caring deity Who tolerates everything, even the sin in their lives and the lives of people who’ve hurt them terribly, they can take confidence in the fact that He will send such people to Hell where they will suffer forever.
Because one could use your same arguments, then, to defend what others would surely consider an un-Biblical balance in the other direction, how would a Shack supporter respond?
(Checks, then double-checks) ‘Tis flattering, but we’re not at all the only ones in the “room,” are we? ;-) Multiple others here have voiced their well-written objections, and they’re not merely “labeling” others who disagree as apostate or non-Christian. (I’d like to see a quote from anyone here who has merely ranted legalistically? However, that is often simply a quick-draw stereotyping reaction, spying fundie pulpit-pounders everywhere.)
Furthermore, what, exactly, is the logic behind mere dismissal of discussion as “labeling”? “Labels” are how we communicate. They’re also called “words.” Thus, Chris Pack himself has 604 labels in his last comment. ;-)
This seems another stereotype about all Christ-followers who believe certain candidates are closer to advocating God’s moral standards in government than others — that if they maintain this belief, they are saying such-and-such a person is “God’s candidate” (and blast you, you’re going to Hell if you don’t vote our way).
As for those who claim to be Christians in surveys: first, Barna himself has elsewhere said that confessing Christians don’t really hold to a Biblical worldview; secondly:
Ah, but if you really love a person, wouldn’t you want to know what he or she has said about him- or herself instead of contradictory speculation from a secondary source? Similarly, if we truly love Jesus, aren’t we going to want to know the balanced and Biblical Truth about Him? Is this truly advocated in The Shack? To be sure, many people from other religions and Christianity mutations (such as Mormonism) claim to love Jesus — but their “Jesus” is a prosperity-“gospel” Jesus, or a “Jesus” who is a brothers of Lucifer, or a “Jesus” who somehow find time to go to India and attain enlightenment.
What I am not saying is that your or anyone who enjoys The Shack’s view of Jesus is not a Christian. What I am saying is that although this is anti-Biblical teaching about Him that may not terribly damage true Christ-followers’ spiritual growths in the long run — God is sovereign to preserve His own — it will not ultimately advance their growth in faith in and knowledge of Him. Furthermore, will it help unbelievers understand a Biblical balance of Christ, Who as fully God and fully man is both love yet wrath, transcendent yet knowable, infinite yet personal?
As for whether the refutations here have been written and loving, others can discern that for themselves. It seems that to some, any advocacy of Biblical Truth and encouragement of teaching it, and discouragement of false teaching, would seem “unloving.” With that in mind, then, perhaps the Apostle Paul himself would seem very “unloving” almost constantly?
Unlike another un-Biblical balance that perhaps some incidentally advocate — that of believing we cannot be humble and gracious and yet defending God’s truth — we can do them together. Christ-followers really can walk the walk and chew deep doctrine at the same time — and eschew that which is not a Biblical balance of both.
12. Isaac McPheeters said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 8
Actually Amir, I would say that The Lord of the Rings has Christian overtones, rather than Pagan. I have read the books many many times and have also read Tolkien's other works.
But regardless, looking at scripture, Paul uses a pagan idol (the unknown God) to witness to the unbelievers. Was that idea faulty or building a statue to an unknown God? Certainly, but Paul used it. It doesn't mean, however, that Christians should go out and build a statue to an unknown God to witness to believers.
13. Chris Pack said the following at 10:05 AM on Jul 8
Dr. Ransom,
Thank you for your comments and gentle rebuke. I will take them to heart as I certainly would not want to cause damage to others. As stated before...my last post will truly be my last. I simply wanted to acknowledge your love for me - that you would care enough to correct me. Thank you and God bless to you, Tom, and, as you have pointed out, the others here who seek to uphold the Truth that is Jesus Christ. May we all come to know Him more deeply on this journey together, and may we never stop taking it together though we disagree at times.
Chris
14. Al said the following at 3:46 PM on Jul 8
I would also add that Lord of the Rings is written with Christian themes even if it uses "pagan" or mythological language to communicate those themes. One of the best examples is how evil and sin ultimately serves the purposes of goodness, thought it isn't always initially apparent how it could. Gollum, who has been a thorn in Frodo's side for much of the story, ultimately saves Frodo from the Ring's allure and Frodo's moment of weakness through his obsession and greed.
C.S. Lewis is also fond of using pagan characters, imagery, and mythology to communicate Christian truths and themes, even when the story if taken as an ultimate reality, would decidedly not be "Christian". Till We Have Faces reinterprets pagan mythology and co-opts pagan Gods to reveal truths about human nature, possessive love, self-pitying rage, and final brokenness in meeting the transcendent Divine.
Both these authors are wise to avoid directly describing God, even in their fiction, in ways that seem to contradict or undermine what He has revealed about Himself, however (aside from that bit in the Last Battle that has a Universalist bent to it).
15. john said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 10
I appreciate the many thougtful comments on both sides. Here is a link to an article 'The Shack: Father-goddess Rising.'
This is a very serious thing that has been introduced into the Body of Christ, all the more so since it is not the God of the Bible.
16. john sullivan said the following at 2:56 PM on Jul 10
what's really weird to me is why be so defensive of a BOOK? it's just a book! i can recognize that shakespeare is a good writer. i can recognize that rage-against-the-machine and radiohead are amazingly talented bands. but that doesn't make me defend their ideologies.
to be more relevant, I can recognize the talent of guys like rob bell, brian mcclaren,etc to communicate and teach. but that doesn't mean i endorse their theology or recommend their books to people.
why is good writing that's got the label 'christian' so sacred??
what is in our hearts that makes us so defensive of this?
read Isaiah 6, revelation, job 38-42. think about how awesome God's holiness and power is, then think about what Christ went through. if you really begin to FEEL how precious "He who knew no sin became sin for us" really is, you will fight to the DEATH to defend that. not some stupid book.
sorry if i rant. but what Christ did on that day is just too precious.
17. Ted Slater said the following at 3:34 PM on Jul 10
John, you asked, "why be so defensive of a BOOK?"
I have to reply: "Why be so defensive of an review of this book?"
You are clearly passionate for truth. We share your passion.
18. Sinner Saved By Grace said the following at 1:54 PM on Oct 4
With respect to all Believers who have posted their views of "The Shack", I conclude: When trying to discern what is true and pleasing to God, whether it be in what books we read, TV programs or movies we watch, websites we visit, why not go directly to the inspired "Word of God" instead of the inspired "word of man"? If we Believers/Followers of Christ Jesus, would prayerfully study God's Word more in our efforts to discern right from wrong, whether it be in what we read, watch, convictions we live by, etc., concluding what is true and pleasing to God would not be so difficult.
19. Dorothy said the following at 3:34 PM on Jan 26
I read this book on the recommendation of a Non-Christian friend who was gushing over it because Christianity had always been about do's and dont's and for the first time it clicked that it was about a relationship.
After reading the book, I have to say that I appreciated that this book was able to bring the relationship part of God to readers, but as a Christian reading this, I must say that there were things in there I didn't agree with, or found hard to swallow, theologically.
I totally agree that God can and does use flawed material to reach his people, but as Christians we do need to read these things with discernment, using the Bible as our anchor, and not using the book to interpret what the Bible says.
20. Todd Jess said the following at 9:26 PM on Feb 12
I have read and discussed "The Shack" ad infinitum. I personally found the book to be a very nice portrait of how God's love is redemptive, and how we must forgive to be forgiven. I personally enjoyed the depiction of the Trinity--it was imaginitve and showed the relationship in a way that I had never been able to conceptualize.
I was not worried about the depiction of God as an african-american woman. The author used the image of God in a way to break out of a stereo-type. Later in the book, he presents God as a wizened old man--does that fit your stereotype better? The depiction of the Spirit as an asian woman was perhaps a bit odd, but again worked in the overall theme of the book. Only the depiction of Christ Himself troubled me. The author reduced Him to less than the Scriptures say He was, and I did not like that at all.
Was I comfortable with the book as a theological treatise? No. Did I enjoy the book as a nice look at how God prefers a relationship over legalism? Yes. Was it a great book to study for Biblical truth? No. Was it a great book to study for a message about the power of redemption through God's forgiveness? Yes.
Would I recommend this book for a new believer? No. Would I recommend this book to a more mature beleiver who could benefit from a fresh look at God? Possibly.
Are there dangers in this book? Only if taken as a work of theology--which it certainly could be, given the reviews and positive press it has been given. This is not a book of theology. This is not even an inspired work. It is a very nice work of fiction that presents a way of looking at God that, while not technically accurate, can bring comfort to those who are hurting.
But the bottom line to me is that this is a work of fiction. If you take it as a work of theology, you are missing the point. If you think that the depiciton of God and the Trinity in the book are 100% biblically accurate, you are wrong. If you think that there is nothing that can be taken from the book that can be applied to your walk in Christ, you are wrong. It's a little of both. Don't look to the book to reveal "TRUTH" about God--and don't look to the book to revolutionalize the Biblical view of God.
God's TRUTH is in the Bible. The Bible is the only way we know what is true of God--we cannot rely on experience alone, for the heart is deceitful. And that is the strongest failure of The Shack. It does not point back to the Bible for it's truth.
How much liberty do we allow for "poetic license" in a work of fiction about God? When does it cease to be fiction, and become heresy? I don't know that answer. I personally don't consider The Shack to be heretical, but I don't think I will endorse it nearly as much as I once did.
I think that good can come out of The Shack. But it is not overwhelmingly good theology, nor is it overwhelmingly good logically. It is great emotionally, and it can be used for good--but it can also harm. So be careful.
21. BDB said the following at 12:59 AM on Mar 25
Well, I finally got around to reading The Shack. I'm actually not finished with it, but it's been such an interesting day, that I wanted to get this comment down.
The reason I'm reading it now is that the author is coming to my church next weekend to speak. When these various posts appeared last year, I did forward them on to my pastor, who likes the book. When he announced the author's pending visit, my pastor was quick to tell everyone that he's aware of the theological controversy and it's not a theological book. He specifically noted that the author was largely raised by an African-American nanny, which is why that imagery is used in the book - it's not a theological statement. You may have heard people mention how Abba Father is best translated as "Daddy." Well, if you were not raised by daddy, but by a black nanny, well it makes more sense that is what you would think of.
Moving right along. Frankly, I'm puzzled by the focus on theological criticism.
I guess it's because the evil depicted in the book is too obviously real. This isn't fantasy evil like LOTR. You could totally see Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel's On the Record take a break from Natalee Holloway and Caylee Anthony to report the events of The Shack on location. Are we arguing about theology because it's too frightening to face the tragedy that results from evil in the world?
You see, my day began at a board meeting for a charity. We meet in an assessment center for child abuse funded by the charity. It is staffed by forensic pediatricians that are on the faculty of the local (Christian) teaching hospital. There aren't many pediatricians who want to do this kind of work; it's not nearly as rewarding as working with happy families.
As tragic as child abuse is, there's a more dramatic tragedy in the news. The plane crash in Montana? The guy who just lost his two daughters, two sons-in-law, and five grand children is a supporter of the charity. I know people who know him. They've been on other plane flights with him.
When someone experiences tragedy on this scale, they WILL wrestle with God. I really hope no one throws theology in their face.