The Shack

[Mike]

The thing with The Shack. I don't get hung up with the portrayal of God as a woman. I definitely agree that God has always been described in the masculine, but my take on the authors intent was this: In his story, God appeared as a woman simply to completely blow away this guy's preconceptions of Him. He wanted to knock him out of his spiritual sleep. I know we get into trouble when we start feminizing God, but since I believe this was the intent of God as portrayed by the author, I see it as the exception. And didn't he ultimately come to him as a man at the end? It's been a while since I read it.

Leaving out the judgment for sin is more of a problem to me. And I remember having this issue too that really jumped out at me: Didn't the author clearly state through one of the Trinity that Jesus did not poses the ability to perform miracles from His own power while on earth. I think it was "Papa" (God) who said He needed God to perform the miracles He was displaying. I tossed the book out of my hands when I got to that part. But I ended up finishing it so I could be informed on all the hype.

I agree with you overall, I just see a reason that God would present himself as a black, heavy-set woman.

 

[faithtransforms]

I HATED The Shack. I got halfway through it and actually threw it in the trash can. When it implied that it was God's will that that little girl be sexually abused and murdered, I threw it away. God know right from wrong. He didn't allow that to happen. We live in a fallen world. I was suspicious of the book from right around the beginning but when I got to that part I was disgusted and tossed it in the trash where it belonged.

I am not judging the author, I do not know his heart. But that book IS dangerous. Many people's ideas of the gospel will be affected even if it IS fiction.

I never even got to the part where universalism was implied, but that's REALLY dangerous too.

 

[NJBeliever]

Yeah unfortunately many MANY people have formed their views on God (or had them reaffirmed) by The Shack. If you need proof, just browse the thousands of reviews on Amazon by people who are self-professing Christians. Look at the amount of Christian study sessions they describe based on this book. It is not a mere "work of fiction", it's affecting people's theology.

So I have to agree with the previous post that it is indeed dangerous since it's basically heresy on numerous levels.

 

[sarsardonic]

Yeah unfortunately many MANY people have formed their views on God (or had them reaffirmed) by The Shack. If you need proof, just browse the thousands of reviews on Amazon by people who are self-professing Christians. Look at the amount of Christian study sessions they describe based on this book. It is not a mere "work of fiction", it's affecting people's theology.

So I have to agree with the previous post that it is indeed dangerous since it's basically heresy on numerous levels.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I enjoyed it thoroughly -

I understood when I read it that some (particularly those genres that think that their denominational "Paradigms" represent the totality of Biblical truth) would probably have some theological heartburn about some of what's in there, and it DOES Skate rather close to "universalism" sometimes, but doesn't really "fall in". The "Aunt Jemima" version of God is neat, and the reason is given as the protagonist's Father being a real jackass, and "Poisoning" the concept of "Father" - so substitute a "Mother figure" - FATHER God morphs into more conventional form when the protagonist Comes to peace with dear 'ol dad.

The Book presents a large variety of eclectic observations - mostly related to mainline Charismatic concepts from the '70s.

Overall, I consider it time well spent - particularly for folks who are Biblically savvy, and don't mind a few "Sacred religious cows" being slaughtered along the way.

Unfortunately the Majority of "professing Christians" appear to have never actually READ the Bible to begin with (and in fact, don't even accept it as being "God's Word" necessarily) - and so are "Fair game" for whatever comes down the pike.

 

[l'Chante]

Okay, it seems as if I’m in trouble again. I loved the book. As a matter of fact I am considering buying one of my own. The writer is very talented and the plot was amazing. And even if there are a couple of hiccups in the book, there are many, many truths in there too.
I have always pictured God to have a sense of humour and to truly care about us all.

 

[jasoncran]

i have come to respect satan, after all he does have some truth when he speaks. therefore if and when he speaks i will take notes. i dont think jesus will mind as he is such an understanding guy.

 

[l'Chante]

 

[jasoncran]

i wasnt attacking you, trust me i am just as guilty with any of those odd , highly non-biblical additions to my views of the the bible.

 

[l'Chante]

;) Thanks, Dukey.

 

[Mike]

I've said my bit on this book, but since the public is always clambering for more of my input...

The book was VERY well written. Anyone who has had a child had to struggle through certain parts of it. :bigcry I wanted to throw it in horror, but I couldn't put it down. Very talented writer.

BUT

Very mixed up in his theology. I realize this was a work of fiction, but it was written so close to a true account, I read many reviews that were under the impression it was a true account. While firmly believing in the masculinity of God, I actually thought it was clever to portray "Pappa" the way he did; to blow away the Dad's preconceptions of God and start a fresh relationship. What I didn't like is how no where was there condemnation or repercussions for sin or that God detests sin. Something that has always stuck out in my mind was when Pappa implied that Jesus didn't have the Divine power to perform miracles without the power of God the Father. Jesus also seemed to diminish Christianity in favor of universalism.

As a reader with a theological foundation, I was able to see the red flags. But (as with Avatar), people without a sound foundation could be taken way off track in developing a belief system. :help

 

[Ed the Ned]

Well said Mike. Thumbs up

 

[Ed the Ned]

Okay, it seems as if I’m in trouble again. I loved the book. As a matter of fact I am considering buying one of my own. The writer is very talented and the plot was amazing. And even if there are a couple of hiccups in the book, there are many, many truths in there too.
I have always pictured God to have a sense of humour and to truly care about us all.

I sat in mens group as a man sat and spoke so passionately about the book. A man I have a deep respect for and had to be with as he morned the death of his child in a car accident last year. I will never judge him on his trust and belief in Christ. After I researched the book, without reading it, as I do with any book I read when I don'y know the author. I had a deep discussion with him and he began to see the errors in the book yet we still differ in opinion over the effects of the book. The hiccups in this book are not minor they are extremely deceptive. It might be a book of fiction yet it is portrayed as based on doctrine truth. It is an emotional digger that opens the heart to wrong teachings. We have Bible study groups in our town that have used it for Bible study?????? This book gets a thumbs down from me.

 

[Netnaut]

I enjoyed the book. Just keep in mind it is fiction and as a result it's theology is probably not the most sound. However, it does cover many aspects of the Christian faith well such as grace, the power of the Holy Spirit and various others. It's worth a read as long as you can discern what you are reading properly.

I believe this sums up all Christian Fiction. We should not look to fiction to answer the questions of the universe, but a good Christian Fiction novel can reveal things in a new and exciting way. In the end, we must rely upon our daily study of God's word, and the guiding of His holy spirit, to discern what is truly edifying.

The author of the Shack is a Christian Universalist. If you believe in this philosophy-- that all souls will eventually be reconciled to God, then you will enjoy the Shack.

Regards,

John Hileman
Christian Author and Columnist

 

[l'Chante]

Are you the John Hileman that wrote ‘Ten mortal gods’?

 

[Tailgunner]

We have got to chill out

It is interesting how often Satan gets his agents to castigate those who speak truth.

Consider the example of Jesus (the Jesus of the Bible). There were times when He taught, times, when He was silent, and times when He was in a fury. His indignation was evident in two areas. The abomination of turning the house of God into a market place and the abomination of the Pharisees turning the worship of God into a racket.

The shack would be harmless fiction if it did not talk about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Since it takes upon itself the description of God and the description in an irreverent way, it opens itself for the righteous anger of those who love God.

It is not harmless because it is fiction. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" could be said to be responsible for the death of half a million people. Propaganda is not used because it is harmless, it is used because it is effective.

The Shack is effective propaganda for the warm and fuzzy liberal idea that "all dogs go the heaven". The Bible does not use the word "woe" very often. However, it does say "woe unto them that call good bad and bad good".

An irreverent, dismissive, and even comical view of God is not something that draws people closer to their Lord by making him seem more "real". It helps people see God as less powerful, less significant, and even helpless. It helps people elevate themselves by removing God as even an significant concept.

The book "The Shack" is evil. Those who promote it do evil. Those to accommodate it and compromise with it also dilute truth with evil. There will be judgment for those whose sin of harming others by promoting a shameful attack on the holiness of God which erodes faith.

For the Christian who promotes, excuses, or apologizes for this book, there is shame in front of Jesus for slander to Him and shame for the Christians whose growth may have been retarded and works never realized. The endorsement of this book is a declaration of being ashamed of the real Jesus and the offering of a false Jesus that is less offensive.

For the people who, like this book says, think that they are all eventually going to heaven, They will find that the blood of Christ does not cover their sins and that they will receive judgment for their works. The ridicule of God and the ridicule of those who love God may be then seen as very unwise.

If you cannot call evil, evil, are you even able to know truth? If you do not know truth, do you even know Him who is truth? The mother who is grieved when God is insulted I see as Christian. The mother who is grieved when others are offended I can't say is any different than the billions in the world seeking the peace of the world, its approval, and friendship. The Bible says that such a position makes one an enemy of God.

AMEN! I couldn't have said it any better. Although it's been about two years since I read this book, and it was a borrowed book anyway, I do still have my notes that I made. From the paperback edition, I found the following problems:

Page 99 - Although Jesus is fully God, He has never drawn upon His nature as God to do anything.

Page 104 - Jesus was helping Papa (the Aunt Jemima portrayal of the Father) in the kitchen, when He dropped and spilled a bowl of sauce. This portrays our Lord, the One Who went to the cross for us as a clumsy oaf.

Page 162 - Indicates from the text that most people won't be lost, when Scripture clearly states otherwise.

Page 167 - Refers to contact with the dead, which is clearly forbidden in Scripture. (If I remember, this was where Mack is allowed to contact his deceased daughter)

There are other references I have made notes for that I can't remember what exactly occurs in the book.

Folks, this book is bad theology, blasphemy, and evil. I strongly urge NO ONE to read this unless you are well grounded in your faith, and you know your Bible. It will lead people astray. I give not a whit how sincere this author is, or what the original intent of this foul book was. The fact remains that it stinks of hell.

TG

 

[westtexas]

I give not a whit how sincere this author is, or what the original intent of this foul book was. The fact remains that it stinks of hell.

Can you be a little more straight forward Gunner? I'm not sure I understand your intent here.
Westtexas

 

[reba]

Can Kenneth Copeland be wrong he says God is both male and female?

1) That any of the members of the Godhead (Father and Holy Spirit) can be represented as female characters is wrong. In every single circumstance of the bible, God is represented in a masculine sense. God may have certain female characteristics but He is never represented in scripture as a female. This may appease the feminist crowd but it's inaccurate.

 

[theLords]

What does Kenneth Copeland have to do with this thread?

totopic

 

[Sam21]

If the author wrote of God in a way contrary to scripture then it has to be of the devil...this should be easy for a christian to recognize. Placing the word FICTION on something in order to justify it is nonsense, a lie is not acceptable because it is acknowledged to be a lie.