The Shack

[handy]

My mom is the sweetest little white-haired lady there can be. She doesn't smile, she beams. She has a kind word for everyone and everything, as long as he, she, or it isn't against her Lord.

My mother-in-law is really nice too, she really is. She is a very liberal Christian, but I don't doubt her love for God.

My mother-in-law had given me the book called "The Shack" and recommended that I read it. With all the stuff going lately, I haven't time for much recreational reading, so it has just sat on my end-table in the living room. When everyone was here today for Thanksgiving, my m-i-l asked me if I had read it and I replied that I hadn't had the time. She then asked my mom if she had read it, and my mom said, quite bluntly and with no softening of her tone, "I didn't finish it." The silence that followed was deafening and it provided the only awkward moment in an otherwise great day. Mom let the silence stew for a bit and then softened her tone and asked Joyce why she liked it and Joyce answered and then the subject was changed.

My daughter had wanted to read it, but I don't allow her to read books geared towards adults unless I've had the chance to read them first. With mom's less-than-characteristic antagonism regarding the book, I thought I'd check out some reviews and find out just what was "up" with it.

It sort of reminds me of the whole "DaVinci Code" thing: bad theology wrapped up in a popular text. The author is apparently trying to explain the Trinity and does so by making God the Father a black woman, Jesus an Middle Eastern laborer type and the Holy Spirit an Asian woman. This is only the one example of the bad theology that is apparently throughout the book, but I fully admit I've only read reviews on it, not the book itself.

Given what I know about my mom, (she might look like a sweet little old lady, well she is a sweet little old lady, but she is rock solid on theology) and what I know about my mother-in-law, a very nice person with a decidedly liberal slant and little to no solid theology, I certainly won't allow my daughter to read the book and doubt if I'll read it myself.

I'm curious if anyone around here has read the book and if so, what do you think of it.

 

[inhopeofglory]

There was a long-ish thread on the subject a little while ago, with mostly negative feedback on the book. It'd be worth reading.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=33658

Personally, I thought the book started well - it was very engaging, and easy to read. I put it down in disgust, however, as soon as "God" was introduced, a chapter or two in. It's blasphemous, in my opinion. Stay well away.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

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.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I have never read the book itself, and I have no intention of reading it. I have read many articles both for and against the book. and I believe it is dangerous to read. If the book was clear fiction it would not be a problem but it tries to define God in a way not even to be discerned. This book is used in Bible studies and to many Christians it is identified as truth.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I have never read the book itself, and I have no intention of reading it. I have read many articles both for and against the book. and I believe it is dangerous to read. If the book was clear fiction it would not be a problem but it tries to define God in a way not even to be discerned. This book is used in Bible studies and to many Christians it is identified as truth.

Care to define "dangerous"?

 

[handy]

Thanks for all the input and for the link to the previous discussion that I missed. Frankly, I don't have an overwhelming urge to read the book myself. It's only on my end-table because my m-i-l said I would like it. I wanted the feedback more in order to decide to let my daughter read it, but I'm not going to let her read it. It is just too theologically murky.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Care to define "dangerous"?

How serious to you take scripture? How important is Jesus death? Can anyone get to Heaven and be with the Lord Jesus Christ or are we told that only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ can get to the father. Dangerous is anything that steps in the way of understanding the Gospel! The true Gospel, not the false gospel we are warned about throughout the New Testament. The Bereans were looked at as being noble as they checked everything against scripture. Lets not be foolish and accept this kind of literature into our thoughts so we can be led astray. If this book is fiction then let it be fiction and not become part of Bible Study groups. It has been elevated into a high Christian status amongst believers and is promoted in Christian book stores. I will make my claim again it is dangerous! evil and full of deception.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Care to define "dangerous"?

How serious to you take scripture? How important is Jesus death? Can anyone get to Heaven and be with the Lord Jesus Christ or are we told that only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ can get to the father. Dangerous is anything that steps in the way of understanding the Gospel! The true Gospel, not the false gospel we are warned about throughout the New Testament. The Bereans were looked at as being noble as they checked everything against scripture. Lets not be foolish and accept this kind of literature into our thoughts so we can be led astray. If this book is fiction then let it be fiction and not become part of Bible Study groups. It has been elevated into a high Christian status amongst believers and is promoted in Christian book stores. I will make my claim again it is dangerous! evil and full of deception.

That is your right to do so. However, I can discern what parts of certain books or works of fiction are dangerous or not. Just because you have differences in what this piece of fiction is saying to us does not mean it should shunned or banned.

 

[makingwisethesimple]

Firstly, it isn't a theology text book - it never pretends to be. What you find within the covers is fiction, thus it should not be interpreted literally. The author is a very orthodox Christian man who does not think that his representation of God in the book is reality. The book forces us to rethink our image and conception of God, this is not a bad thing. We shouldn't feel threatened and attacked by this. You may not agree with the implications by the end of the book and that is fine, i'm sure the author is just happy that you spent the time to walk the entire journey with him.

We have got to chill out.

 

[Timf]

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.

 

[makingwisethesimple]

Let me get back to you on that one, i'm just heading out the door for a job interview.

I would appreciate it, however, if you would not refer to me as an agent of Satan again.

 

[Timf]

I would appreciate it, however, if you would not refer to me as an agent of Satan again.

I am sorry that you feel bad. In our society where comfort has replaced truth as the universal measure of all things, there is hardly a greater crime than making someone feel bad. However, this gets to the heart of what I was trying to say.

If someone feels bad that they are called an "agent of Satan" they should first ask if it is true. I contend that if you advance his work, you can legitimately be called his agent.

This is not petulant name calling. This is a wake up call to what is very serious business. Paul said that if anyone brings another gospel, let him be accursed.

The idea that God is confused, uncertain, and hesitant and eventually allows everyone in to heaven can legitimately be called another gospel. To use the cover of "fiction" as a means to advance your ideas and deflect any criticism is like saying that a ventriloquist cannot be held responsible for what his dummy says.

When Christians tolerate slander against their Lord and even spread it, tolerance has gone too far.

 

[jasoncran]

the shack preaches the concept of uniservalism, not exactly biblical.

 

[makingwisethesimple]

I would appreciate it, however, if you would not refer to me as an agent of Satan again.

I am sorry that you feel bad. In our society where comfort has replaced truth as the universal measure of all things, there is hardly a greater crime than making someone feel bad. However, this gets to the heart of what I was trying to say.

If someone feels bad that they are called an "agent of Satan" they should first ask if it is true. I contend that if you advance his work, you can legitimately be called his agent.

This is not petulant name calling. This is a wake up call to what is very serious business. Paul said that if anyone brings another gospel, let him be accursed.

The idea that God is confused, uncertain, and hesitant and eventually allows everyone in to heaven can legitimately be called another gospel. To use the cover of "fiction" as a means to advance your ideas and deflect any criticism is like saying that a ventriloquist cannot be held responsible for what his dummy says.

When Christians tolerate slander against their Lord and even spread it, tolerance has gone too far.

Actually, i've changed my mind about responding to your post because i simply don't think it's going to be a constructive discussion. I think the end result will just be aggravation for me, which would be my own stupid fault for starting the argument.

jasoncran - It depends, universalists will not hesitate to assure that they do believe it is biblical and will back that up. I wonder also if what the author of the Shack is suggesting is inclusivism rather than universalism - there is a distinction.

 

[jasoncran]

if all are being punished, and then will be saved later then why is there heaven at all or a paradise. why even have a judgment then or the cross?

doesnt make sense. one can twist the bible to say that all things you believe are in there.

God is holy is he not? sin must punished. jesus took our punishment so that they we dont have too.

 

[makingwisethesimple]

if all are being punished, and then will be saved later then why is there heaven at all or a paradise. why even have a judgment then or the cross?

doesnt make sense. one can twist the bible to say that all things you believe are in there.

God is holy is he not? sin must punished. jesus took our punishment so that they we dont have too.

I'm not saying i agree with universalists (although i may possibly entertain some inclusivist tendencies). The cross is a necessary part of universalism because the cross is the means by which all are saved.

I agree when you say that the Bible can be twisted to back up any position ("Torture the Bible for long enough and it will confess to anything") - it is important for us all to remember that when we make our own truth claims.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but the universalist preach that even satan will repent, and the hell is only temporary. the cross must take care of the eternal damnation as punishement.

if the saints are to be in the lords kingdom forever than how can the lost ever be included. if one is lost and repents in hell.Why bother with the crufixication, the messiah could have just been a prophet that warned of the punishment that would(purge) follow if one failed to change. but jesus didnt do that.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Man, some just really like to call folks evil. ;)

I enjoyed the Shack. I do not agree with all of the ideas presented but as someone else mentioned, it is a work of fiction meant to convey a story. Nothing more, nothing less. Very uplifting and thought provoking and sometimes solemn but good nontheless.

I do not get my doctrine from works of fiction but you can get "something" from anything that you read that is constructive.

 

[seekandlisten]

I saw an interview with the author of this book on The Hour the other day and was thoroughly impressed with the sincerity of the author in his beliefs. I'm actually quite disturbed by some of the accusations against this author in this thread based on misunderstanding the point of this book and it's intention. He originally wrote this for his kids and friends and they encouraged him to publish it. It's a fiction book with the author's take of who God is to him individually. I'm interested in reading this book after seeing this interview.

If you consider this man to be somehow 'against God' I ask that you watch this interview and explain to me how??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e4b9zzqYN8

Edited: removed quote as this comment wasn't intended to address any specific individual but rather for the entire thread discussion.

 

[Servant John]

I just read the Shack. Overall, it does not lend itself to the complete view of God’s character as taught in the bible and will lead the unbeliever/weak believer to many wrong conclusions.

What it does lead to is the Liberal view of God. That God is love and nothing else matters. This is narrow, short sighted, and a just plain misrepresentation of the God of the bible. What about God’s holiness, exclusivity of Jesus’ death on the cross, condemnation of sin, ect?

The book touches and several theological themes. In many cases I found problems and here are just a few I will highlight:

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.

2) The "Father" character says point blank that God does not judge sin. This is only true when a person has accepted Jesus as their Savior and has been regenerated. The book makes no distinction between application to the believer or unbeliever which I think is a huge mistake. This will give an unbeliever the impression that sin does not matter and will not be judged.

3) To say there is no hierarchy among the Godhead is also wrong. The only begotten Son who does the will of the Father does support the hierarchy among the Godhead. Once again, the book is leading people to the wrong conclusion.

4) There is no emphasis on repentance of sin. The sin question is completely ignored, even when the Mack character asks the question (e.g. Why did God destroy some races in the Old Testament?). If you remember, the very first thing Jesus preached was to repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

5) All throughout the book there is a negative, almost cynical, attitude towards the bible and scripture. All scripture is profitable for teaching, correcting, training, and rebuking. To discuss key themes of the bible and only mention a few “comfortable†verses in scripture, while ignoring many others that illustrate God’s judgment of the unbeleiver and the necessary steps to salvation, is misrepresenting God. Jesus said we are not to add to or take away from scripture.

To say its just "fiction" and therefore OK to rewrite the true meaning of key themes in theology is totally wrong and a cop-out. As believers, we have a responsibility to accurately handle and teach the Word of God in a way that reflects the totality of scripture. The devil himself uses half truths to advance his agenda. I don’t know the true agenda of the Shack’s author. This book as written will bring nobody to repentance, to accept Jesus as the only way to salvation, or give an accurate view of God as not only loving but holy and judging sin.