Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Ellen, Mar 13, 2017.
I just saw The Shack and am curious what others thought of it.....
It was made into a movie?
I read the book.
Some apologists don't care for it because it doesn't properly represent the Trinity.
I'd like to see anybody put together a book or movie that really makes me understand it.
I liked the book.
It helped me to understand the relationship between the three persons.
It helped me to understand how beautiful heaven must be.
What did you like or not like about it?
I read the book so long ago I didn't really remember much of what the story was about. Honestly, I am still processing my feelings and thoughts about the movie. I was extremely emotional watching it (maybe time of month?) and cried through a lot of it. It definitely affected me more than I would have expected. When I can formulate my thoughts about it better I'll write again
I liked it. Which was surprising to me (and my wife frankly). I went with my wife and daughter as their choice of movie, not mine. I expected to come out shaking my head at all the Theological errors and heresy in it, if I even made it to the end without leaving early. I had read/heard so many negative comments about the book's inaccuracies in portraying the Triune God of the Bible and other aspects that I suspected one big inaccuracy after another to be in the movie. On big ultra-liberal, mystical and/or new-agey kind of thing, is what I expected. I was wrong. It was 'okay' theologically, to me, as far as it goes.
If you can 'get past' the inaccurate portrayal of the Father and the Holy Spirit as physical beings (all be it manifestations), I found it does a good enough job portraying the Trinity's interaction with man. I'm sure you could nit-pick various scenarios/aspects though, if you wanted to. Not perfect, but acceptable for a fictional story.
I've heard people criticize it for not discussing God's wrath/hate of man's evil enough. But there was a judgment/court scene foreshadowing the Judgment to come. (Although Jesus wasn't there which was inaccurate). And that's kinda the point of the movie; (people desire God to avenge for other peoples' evil but overlook their own).
As a minimum, it get's you thinking about a Biblical answer to The Problem of Evil.
Some things to consider:
"Any physical representation of the Trinity will necessarily mislead us about God’s true nature. That’s probably why God prohibited it in the Second Commandment."
"There’s a problem with portraying Papa, the Father, as a woman."
"Papa says she doesn’t punish and she isn’t wrathful. God doesn’t punish His children, He disciplines us."
"The view of salvation is unclear. “I’m especially fond of everyone,” is the refrain. Well, yes. But if God loves everyone and doesn’t punish, does everyone go to Heaven?"
"My foremost concern with The Shack—the one that will keep me from seeing it even for purposes of review—is its visual representation of God. To watch The Shack is to watch human actors play the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I take this to be a clear, serious violation of the second commandment"
"The Shack presents God in human flesh. It makes the infinite finite, the invisible visible, the omnipotent impotent, the all-present local, the spiritual material. In its visual portrayal of God it diminishes, it obfuscates, it blasphemes, it lies. Even though I would watch the film to help others interpret it and to bring correction to error, I would still be subjecting myself to a false, blasphemous portrayal of God. I cannot allow myself to watch it even for that purpose. I cannot and will not watch or review it."
"Through twenty-eight brief chapters, Young systematically discusses and denies tenet after tenet of the historic Christian faith. He denies human depravity and divine sovereignty. He proclaims there are none who are specially loved by God and that formal religion is opposed to God. He insists that all humanity has been or will be saved by the gospel, that hell does not exist, that God merely submitted to the cross, that any God who would punish his Son as a substitute is abhorrent, and that the very notion of appeasement is unworthy of God. He denies that sin separates us from God and that death represents the end of our opportunity to respond to his offer of divine grace."
'Now that Young has described what he believes, his fans would do well to return to The Shack, for he has settled many of the debates. Does The Shack teach universalism? Absolutely. Does it encourage people to turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith? Is it meant to compel people to come to deeper confidence in the Bible? Is it a book that will persuade people to join and serve a local church? No, no, and no. Years ago when I reviewed The Shack I said, “Despite the amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodox Christianity."'
I find it interesting that Christians are religious enough to see a Christian movie regardless of the film-making quality, but not religious enough to care that it deliberately misrepresents God. I guess I could say the same about their churches.
This reminds me of what Jesus said to the church of what Jesus said to the church of Laodicea.
How did it misrepresent God?
See my previous post.
closed for moderator review
Reopened drop personal attacks ...
The questions asked about 'the Shack ' can be answered with out snarks and attacks see post # 5 for how it is done..
do not reply to the post in this thread,,,
Thanks for posting your personal opinion Free.
I read the book.
I know about Google. I'm not interested in what others have to say about it but what WE think about it,being part of a Christian community, as we are.
I might see the movie If it's ever available here.
It might never be, thus my interest.
If you're not interested in what others say about it, then how can you be interested in "what WE think about it"? Are not other Christians part of the Christian community? If you mean these forums in particular, why limit yourself to these forums? How would you know if you got to the truth of the matter? Do you think the links I provided aren't truthful in their analysis of The Shack?
You asked how The Shack misrepresented God and I have given evidence of how it more than just misrepresents God; it is rather quite full of heresy and heterodox teachings.
I thought I thanked you for providing your opinion...
I don't understand your reply.
Yes, you did thank me for my opinion, but then went on to say that you "know about Google," and that you're "not interested in what others have to say about it but what WE think about it."
To me that implies your thanking me for my opinion is sarcasm, especially since it is what others have stated and not my personal opinion. I guess I just don't understand the rest of your post.
Wow. I'm that complicated?? I think I'm a very simple person.
This is what I meant and I only go on about this because I hope you understand me a little better for the future.
I read The Shack. English was my major. I know about themes, symbolism, and all that stuff. Maybe I've forgotten some of it. Who knows. My brother reviews movies and music. We used to talk about movies all the time.
I don't need to go to google to find out about a book or movie I've seen. I can decipher it all on my own. Plus, if I wanted to know what OTHERS thought about it, I could have googled it on my own without being supplied a link.
What I meant is that I was interested in what WE HERE ON THIS FORUM thought about it. Why would some think that God was female for instance??
You see. There was no sacrcasm involved.
I say what I mean.
No need to guess.
Hope you understand...
I don't because you've basically repeated it. I guess if you didn't mean sarcasm, you didn't mean it, but I still don't know how the rest of your post fits with thanking me for my opinion.
A flawed representation of Christian theology is more dangerous than a blatant attack on it, IMHO. At least the lines are definitively drawn. This is what I found inherently flawed with the book and its misrepresentation of the Trinity and avoidance of the Gospel.
Of course, someone can say this was a work of fiction in order to move past the heresy, but this is the kind of thing that draws some people further away from confessing, repenting, and following Christ. I haven't seen the movie. Don't plan to. Assuming it follows the book, I know I don't have to
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Being fiction makes it so much more insidious and dangerous.
I haven't seen the movie, but I read the book before I got genuinely saved. I read The Shack and The Purpose Driven Life. Here's the thing...both of those books are dangerous. I read them, thought I "got" Christianity, thought I was genuinely saved, etc...
...and I was wrong. I mean, The Lord intervened, so its all good now, but...dangerous stuff, as some other posters have pointed out, especially for baby Christians and those on their way back to Christ.
I haven't seen the movie. I plan on reading the book. There are several books I plan to read surrounding The Shack. If anyone is interested, I have some links that review the book and the name of at least two books that are favorable toward the Book. My interest is simple: Friend of mine have embraced the message of Baxter Kruger who has said it's the best book he's ever read. He's written a book, The Shack Revisited and I plan on reading that too. I can't engage my friend if I don't know what's being said. My wife read the book and didn't like it. She's an English major and librarian (retired). Will I see the movie? Not likely. I have too much to read first.
Separate names with a comma.