The Shack

[Ginger]

When everybody is saying something is wonderful, then look again. The masses are always wrong.

Yep, so true. To this day thats why I never read "the purpose driven life". If it truly glorifies God and speaks truth, the world will shun it and the mainstream stores probably won't carry it.

You should read it then make up your mind. God can truly bless things/people for the purpose of His kingdom. When you read purpose driven life, it is more of a quiet time book and there is so much scripture quoted. As Rick Warren himself says in the book the bible says it all, he is just giving you bible verses to help.
That book did really help me and make me think and see things I sadly didn't see before in my life.

Remember the bible is still the biggest selling book ever, and that is not bad!

 

[Ginger]

Doctrinely the shack is bad and has so many questionable things ideas (read through amazon reviews as well as the link given here in the thread) that it echoes so much of what the new emergent theology is about - feelings, your own experiences is equal or greater than 'truth' - what is absolute truth (bible) etc (not all people are - Mark Driscoll I think is the only one who is clear and says that is wrong) as well as falsehoods about the trinity (the book).

The shack speaks about his experience over all his years in college etc is better. The reason doctrine is so important to know is to be able to tell false teaching when it appears as you already know what you believe and why you do so.

IF you know your doctrine and can easily see through the bad and can just take out what is helpful then I can see how it may help you. I can understand why christians are so rapturous about it (my sister is). I can only hope and pray that the wrong things can be left behind and the good taken out from christians who have read this and it is truly helpful in their walk.

I can only fear that the 'bad' in it is sublimial in their mind and if they come across a false teacher teaching above stuff then they will say - 'what is wrong with that, the shack said that', then they are open to it.
I couldn't get past why God was a woman amongst so many other things that the helpful thing at the end (closer walk with God, great quiet time) had a bitter-sweet taste in my mouth, I couldn't seperate the bad it was to deep in the book.

I was left with thinking it was a good concept for a book and only wish a good 'sound' christian had written it (and of course dumped all the garbage from it)

 

[strathyboy]

I couldn't get past why God was a woman amongst so many other things that the helpful thing at the end (closer walk with God, great quiet time) had a bitter-sweet taste in my mouth, I couldn't seperate the bad it was to deep in the book.

Most of the reviewers I've read that are negative towards the Shack seemed to have a very difficult time dealing with that part of the book. But after thinking about it, I'm not sure why it should be so troubling. For example, C.S. Lewis' Aslan is a clear analogy of God. And yet I don't hear Christians claiming they have a very hard time with the books because God is a lion. In the bible, Jesus calls himself a lamb. Does that mean he really is a lamb? Of course not; no more than he is a lion.

God calls himself the groom, while the church is the bride. He also calls himself our father. Did he literally marry the church? Did he literally father us? Of course not. The relationship is what is important with those two metaphors. He uses them to help us understand what he means to us and how we can and should relate to him. He uses words and phrases we can understand.

So I don't see why we take it so literally when Young represents God with a woman. Young doesn't even go so far as to suggest aspects of God by representing God as a woman, as Lewis does by representing God as a lion.

But I'm curious as to why representing God as a woman is such a problem. Do you not believe God is able to do it? Do you see it as somehow demeaning God to suggest that is might do such a thing? Do you believe God is male?

 

[Ginger]

I couldn't get past why God was a woman amongst so many other things that the helpful thing at the end (closer walk with God, great quiet time) had a bitter-sweet taste in my mouth, I couldn't seperate the bad it was to deep in the book.

Most of the reviewers I've read that are negative towards the Shack seemed to have a very difficult time dealing with that part of the book. But after thinking about it, I'm not sure why it should be so troubling. For example, C.S. Lewis' Aslan is a clear analogy of God. And yet I don't hear Christians claiming they have a very hard time with the books because God is a lion. In the bible, Jesus calls himself a lamb. Does that mean he really is a lamb? Of course not; no more than he is a lion.

God calls himself the groom, while the church is the bride. He also calls himself our father. Did he literally marry the church? Did he literally father us? Of course not. The relationship is what is important with those two metaphors. He uses them to help us understand what he means to us and how we can and should relate to him. He uses words and phrases we can understand.

So I don't see why we take it so literally when Young represents God with a woman. Young doesn't even go so far as to suggest aspects of God by representing God as a woman, as Lewis does by representing God as a lion.

But I'm curious as to why representing God as a woman is such a problem. Do you not believe God is able to do it? Do you see it as somehow demeaning God to suggest that is might do such a thing? Do you believe God is male?

There is a growing movement with feminists and PC people to have God is female "she" is in control etc -that is so clearly against the bible teachings throughout scripture. And this book the author making God a woman sails so close to this if not crosses the line and joins this thinking.

I realise a lot of liberal churches now don't really have a problem with God being protrayed as a woman and even come out with the argument - God can equally be protrayed as a woman so lets pray to her or him, if you are near that thinking then that's what you think :verysad (I am not preaching a sermon here as why that is bad as to me it is obvious throughout scripture) and it is just one thing the modern liberal church takes and slightly twists.

I don't know what you mean about "do you believe God is able to do it" be a woman you mean? think I have stated what I think about God being protrayed as a woman (not biblical)

But that is only a small part of why this book is wrong doctrinally - the falsehoods against the trinity, and the basic premise like I said before of the emerging church theology it doesn't really matter about the bible (where is the bible or reading it to understand God in the shack it's not in it hardly at all and when it is it's misrepresented, it's not important - clearly against scripture ) it's all about our feelings, feelings/experiences are equal or more important than the doctrinal basic truths in the bible.

The bible says without faith it is imposible to please God the shack seems God says thats not important. There is a hell there is a place that non believers go to for puishment of their sin but the shack doesn't mention that doesn't seem to like to talk about it.

Even then these are just some of many reasons why this book is misleading to the basics of christian doctrine and truth (not just missing some out, I realise you can't cover everything in a book) if not heresy.

Why is doctrine and theology so important? so you can easily test words/things against scripture (as it says to do in scripture) and know what is truth, what twists truth and what only tells part of the truth in doing so distorts it.
But I guess the old saying of 'the hardest lie to dispute/reveal is the one closest to the truth'

 

[Ginger]

And maybe people ignorant of what his beliefs are (universalism which I think is obvious through the book) then check out http://www.squidoo.com/ShackHeresy

If Young said this then 100% clearly heresy

"I am personally convinced that Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised and now reigns as a fully human being, and has not drawn upon his deity ever in that process."

 

[heather]

My Sunday school class is doing the audio version of this book now, but I can't seam to get into it. The way the father explains Jesus' sacrifice to his children by telling about the indian princess was wrong. Jesus never killed himself, and if that's just a story, then is Jesus too?

I'm not really thrilled with the book.

 

[strathyboy]

There is a growing movement with feminists and PC people to have God is female "she" is in control etc -that is so clearly against the bible teachings throughout scripture. And this book the author making God a woman sails so close to this if not crosses the line and joins this thinking.

I have to ask: did you actually read the book, or are you just repeating what you've been told? And second, did you actually read what I wrote?

I don't see how Young representing God with a woman (and later as an old man) is so different from Lewis representing God as a lion, or Jesus calling himself a lamb, or God appearing as a burning cloud to lead the Israelites. Clearly God isn't a woman, or a lion, or a lamb, or a burning cloud. Furthermore, Young's continued use of the name Papa for God shows the father relationship no matter the physical appearance.

I realise a lot of liberal churches now don't really have a problem with God being protrayed as a woman and even come out with the argument - God can equally be protrayed as a woman so lets pray to her or him, if you are near that thinking then that's what you think :verysad (I am not preaching a sermon here as why that is bad as to me it is obvious throughout scripture) and it is just one thing the modern liberal church takes and slightly twists.

I've never seen one. Are there specific denominations that believe that?

I don't know what you mean about "do you believe God is able to do it" be a woman you mean? think I have stated what I think about God being protrayed as a woman (not biblical)

Nobody ever said God WAS a woman, only that he was able to appear as one to us if he wished to. Is that unbiblical? If so, can you specify?

Even then these are just some of many reasons why this book is misleading to the basics of christian doctrine and truth (not just missing some out, I realise you can't cover everything in a book) if not heresy.

I don't know of anyone who has based their lives on the Shack rather than the bible, or been misled somehow by the Shack. The Shack is a novel, not a theological treatise.

But in the end, I think it's important to recognize that Christians can disagree on a wide variety of issues and still be Christians. This forum should make that abundantly clear.

 

[Ginger]

Of course I have read it, how could I say what bothered me if I didn't! also as I said I could see how people loved it and raved over it (like I tried to say in my first post)
And believe me I could write a thesis on what bothered me, not nitpicking in unimportant theology like reformed against non reformed etc but fundamental basic Christian doctrine - not things that you can take or leave. But of course like the book which talks about 'dry paper' theology it makes theology out to be not important or even reading your bible.

I did read your post. If you haven't heard any pastors including Rob Bell of emergent church (I have heard anglican vicars say that - new age people talk about let's pray to her, God is a woman if you haven't heard that - well I congratulate you on it ) why is it wrong - it's goddess worship, feminine theology which lately is gaining popularity and the shack is helping it. (also gays use it but that is a whole other topic)

All throughout the bible all pronouns is referred as masculine though God is spirit, God himself chose to be referred to as male - Moses who visited with God always talked about God as masculine, so did Jesus - 'my father'. If God wanted himself to be revealed either or he would allow - my mother as well as my father. The word 'theos' is a masculine noun in greek and used hundreds of times throughout the bible in direct reference to God.

Don't want to get into symbolism of the lion (pages on it!) but that is in scripture - Revelation 5:5 talking directly about Christ.
Lion of Judah throughout scripture was used to refer to Israelite tribe also the traits of a lion - King of the jungle (king of all) power, majesty. Also in Amos opens with "the Lord roars from Zion" the end of the section is "a lion has roared". And yes the scripture also talks once about Satan being a lion and one can have a discussion over that (now that is going into dry territory for me :biglaugh )

As I said before if that was the only thing he did or said wrong then I wouldn't have such a problem with it. It is a pattern of things all together that adds up to heresy at the worst and misleading people at the least.

And that is the problem so many people say well it doesn't matter about theology it's just a novel - not understanding that doctrine isn't dry (like the shack makes it out to be and even reading the bible :verysad ) but vital and alive as it serves to further our relationship with Christ as we study why and what fully the cross means etc cause if we understand basic doctrine it brings us closer to God as we appreciate and understand more about Him by studying the word as well as being able to spot slippery slope thinking and wrong thinking which can lead us down a dangerous path.

ie - ""I am the best way any human can relate to [the Father] or [the Holy Spirit]" (not the only way) and there are a couple of more references like that - when asked whether all roads lead to God, "Most roads don't lead anywhere" not then going on to say "I am the only way". - so wrong and then christians read it and say well it doesn't matter - it does!!!!

now a new age person could read this and say 'yes, but He is not the only way to get to heaven " while a christian could read this and not get that from it, but you can see how easily that can be taken and twisted. It is ambiguous a lot of the book - it's not the only one, I am only giving you one example. This isn't 'doesn't really matter theology' but basic principle as christians we should believe in.
But the biggest put off to me is the quote I gave in another post from him. Do you really think reading a book with someone with that viewpoint, have it not seep in the book, not have problems with it, especially with the subject matter?

But I don't want to end on a negative note (if anyone is still awake at this stage :biglaugh ) as I said in my 1st post (I think) I hope people who have read it, will help them in their christian walk that they can discern the 'off bits' and grow in our Lord. That is my wish for everyone to continually grow in Him, if you get something good out of it - great! But I felt I had to warn unbelievers, new Christians especially the not so hidden dangers of it.

 

[Cornelius]

Of course I have read it, how could I say what bothered me if I didn't! also as I said I could see how people loved it and raved over it (like I tried to say in my first post)
And believe me I could write a thesis on what bothered me, not nitpicking in unimportant theology like reformed against non reformed etc but fundamental basic Christian doctrine - not things that you can take or leave. But of course like the book which talks about 'dry paper' theology it makes theology out to be not important or even reading your bible.

I did read your post. If you haven't heard any pastors including Rob Bell of emergent church (I have heard anglican vicars say that - new age people talk about let's pray to her, God is a woman if you haven't heard that - well I congratulate you on it ) why is it wrong - it's goddess worship, feminine theology which lately is gaining popularity and the shack is helping it. (also gays use it but that is a whole other topic)

All throughout the bible all pronouns is referred as masculine though God is spirit, God himself chose to be referred to as male - Moses who visited with God always talked about God as masculine, so did Jesus - 'my father'. If God wanted himself to be revealed either or he would allow - my mother as well as my father. The word 'theos' is a masculine noun in greek and used hundreds of times throughout the bible in direct reference to God.

Don't want to get into symbolism of the lion (pages on it!) but that is in scripture - Revelation 5:5 talking directly about Christ.
Lion of Judah throughout scripture was used to refer to Israelite tribe also the traits of a lion - King of the jungle (king of all) power, majesty. Also in Amos opens with "the Lord roars from Zion" the end of the section is "a lion has roared". And yes the scripture also talks once about Satan being a lion and one can have a discussion over that (now that is going into dry territory for me :biglaugh )

As I said before if that was the only thing he did or said wrong then I wouldn't have such a problem with it. It is a pattern of things all together that adds up to heresy at the worst and misleading people at the least.

And that is the problem so many people say well it doesn't matter about theology it's just a novel - not understanding that doctrine isn't dry (like the shack makes it out to be and even reading the bible :verysad ) but vital and alive as it serves to further our relationship with Christ as we study why and what fully the cross means etc cause if we understand basic doctrine it brings us closer to God as we appreciate and understand more about Him by studying the word as well as being able to spot slippery slope thinking and wrong thinking which can lead us down a dangerous path.

ie - ""I am the best way any human can relate to [the Father] or [the Holy Spirit]" (not the only way) and there are a couple of more references like that - when asked whether all roads lead to God, "Most roads don't lead anywhere" not then going on to say "I am the only way". - so wrong and then christians read it and say well it doesn't matter - it does!!!!

now a new age person could read this and say 'yes, but He is not the only way to get to heaven " while a christian could read this and not get that from it, but you can see how easily that can be taken and twisted. It is ambiguous a lot of the book - it's not the only one, I am only giving you one example. This isn't 'doesn't really matter theology' but basic principle as christians we should believe in.
But the biggest put off to me is the quote I gave in another post from him. Do you really think reading a book with someone with that viewpoint, have it not seep in the book, not have problems with it, especially with the subject matter?

But I don't want to end on a negative note (if anyone is still awake at this stage :biglaugh ) as I said in my 1st post (I think) I hope people who have read it, will help them in their christian walk that they can discern the 'off bits' and grow in our Lord. That is my wish for everyone to continually grow in Him, if you get something good out of it - great! But I felt I had to warn unbelievers, new Christians especially the not so hidden dangers of it.

I was going to post again, but then I read your posts and thought: "Well, that's it ! She covered it all with love. Nothing more to add"

Good and Godly posts .

C

 

[MarkSB]

Of course I have read it, how could I say what bothered me if I didn't! also as I said I could see how people loved it and raved over it (like I tried to say in my first post)
And believe me I could write a thesis on what bothered me, not nitpicking in unimportant theology like reformed against non reformed etc but fundamental basic Christian doctrine - not things that you can take or leave. But of course like the book which talks about 'dry paper' theology it makes theology out to be not important or even reading your bible.

I did read your post. If you haven't heard any pastors including Rob Bell of emergent church (I have heard anglican vicars say that - new age people talk about let's pray to her, God is a woman if you haven't heard that - well I congratulate you on it ) why is it wrong - it's goddess worship, feminine theology which lately is gaining popularity and the shack is helping it. (also gays use it but that is a whole other topic)

All throughout the bible all pronouns is referred as masculine though God is spirit, God himself chose to be referred to as male - Moses who visited with God always talked about God as masculine, so did Jesus - 'my father'. If God wanted himself to be revealed either or he would allow - my mother as well as my father. The word 'theos' is a masculine noun in greek and used hundreds of times throughout the bible in direct reference to God.

Don't want to get into symbolism of the lion (pages on it!) but that is in scripture - Revelation 5:5 talking directly about Christ.
Lion of Judah throughout scripture was used to refer to Israelite tribe also the traits of a lion - King of the jungle (king of all) power, majesty. Also in Amos opens with "the Lord roars from Zion" the end of the section is "a lion has roared". And yes the scripture also talks once about Satan being a lion and one can have a discussion over that (now that is going into dry territory for me :biglaugh )

As I said before if that was the only thing he did or said wrong then I wouldn't have such a problem with it. It is a pattern of things all together that adds up to heresy at the worst and misleading people at the least.

And that is the problem so many people say well it doesn't matter about theology it's just a novel - not understanding that doctrine isn't dry (like the shack makes it out to be and even reading the bible :verysad ) but vital and alive as it serves to further our relationship with Christ as we study why and what fully the cross means etc cause if we understand basic doctrine it brings us closer to God as we appreciate and understand more about Him by studying the word as well as being able to spot slippery slope thinking and wrong thinking which can lead us down a dangerous path.

ie - ""I am the best way any human can relate to [the Father] or [the Holy Spirit]" (not the only way) and there are a couple of more references like that - when asked whether all roads lead to God, "Most roads don't lead anywhere" not then going on to say "I am the only way". - so wrong and then christians read it and say well it doesn't matter - it does!!!!

now a new age person could read this and say 'yes, but He is not the only way to get to heaven " while a christian could read this and not get that from it, but you can see how easily that can be taken and twisted. It is ambiguous a lot of the book - it's not the only one, I am only giving you one example. This isn't 'doesn't really matter theology' but basic principle as christians we should believe in.
But the biggest put off to me is the quote I gave in another post from him. Do you really think reading a book with someone with that viewpoint, have it not seep in the book, not have problems with it, especially with the subject matter?

But I don't want to end on a negative note (if anyone is still awake at this stage :biglaugh ) as I said in my 1st post (I think) I hope people who have read it, will help them in their christian walk that they can discern the 'off bits' and grow in our Lord. That is my wish for everyone to continually grow in Him, if you get something good out of it - great! But I felt I had to warn unbelievers, new Christians especially the not so hidden dangers of it.

 

[Jasmin]

Just my thoughts on the book:
A friend of mine who has NEVER been to church before somehow got a copy of this book. It introduced him to Christianity and is now going to church with me and is going to a bible study once a week. I am really thankful for that.

 

[Drew]

I did not like this book.


1. From a purely stylistic perspective, it was exceeding "corny". I agree that this is a relatively minor consideration;

2. There was some theology in it that I believe is simply wrong - although I cannot remember what that was.

3. I think it paints a picture of a kind of relationship between us and God that we are actually never promised in the scriptures. This is one example of what I mean in point number 2.

However, I do recognize that many like the book and its overall impact on the world may indeed be very positive.

 

[Timf]

There is a sort of muddle-headed warm and fuzzy type of "Christianity" that is a perverted elevation of self. People are told Christianity is really about them and making them feel good about themselves. They are drawn to Churches where they hear messages telling them how good they are and how glad God is to have them on his "team".

The problem with the "Shack" is that it presents "another gospel". It puts words in the mouth of God. In this way it places itself even above the Bible as it presumes to tell people the real truth. It does not "explain" God's word, it changes it. It falls into the category of doctrines of demons.

The Shack tells people that God respects our choices and wants us to "come as we are". The Bible tells us that we are all sinners and we need to repent of our sins and humble ourselves.

Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Christians may feel there are some problems with the book, or that they would urge caution. These attempts at appeasement with those who would rail in defense of the book only attempt to achieve the purpose of the book which is to elevate our feelings over truth.

The Bible says that those who bring "another gospel" should be accursed. This book is another gospel.

 

[Serenity278]

I love that book. I even got my not christian sister to read it or at least I hope she is lol

 

[Biblereader]

AMEN, Cornelius!
I love it when the truth is revealed!

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/shack.htm

Good article.

I have learned one thing : When everybody is saying something is wonderful, then look again. The masses are always wrong.

No offense meant to anybody here, but we really have to be careful about what we accept to be from God.Some of my friends who really love the Lord has also been taken by this book. It really does not base itself on Scripture, but on New Age.

Just look inside yourself and you will find that small voice that will tell you the truth.

C

 

[Biblereader]

The Shack promotes the idea that eventually, everyone, even the Christ rejectors, EVEN SATAN, will be accepted by God. Universalism is what it promotes. That is anti-Christian to the max.

Read these reviews:

http://theshackreview.com/content/TheSh ... w2Page.pdf

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6994

 

[Biblereader]

The problem with the "Shack" is that it presents "another gospel".

Christians may feel there are some problems with the book, or that they would urge caution. These attempts at appeasement with those who would rail in defense of the book only attempt to achieve the purpose of the book which is to elevate our feelings over truth.

The Bible says that those who bring "another gospel" should be accursed. This book is another gospel.

Amen, brother Tim. Do NOT try to compromise with those who promote the dangerous gospel of the Shack.
The Shack should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I agree, the shack is a dangerous book.

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

The Shack: that building is condemned. :o

 

[Biblereader]

I love that book. I even got my not christian sister to read it or at least I hope she is lol

Do you know that the Shack promotes Universalism, and that it is NOT the Gospel of Jesus?