The Shack Review
A friend from church wrote a brief review of The Shack that touches on some key points as to why we should be cautious about this book. Or maybe even disregard it all together. He gave me permission to share this review.
SHACK ATTACK - OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?
“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon
At the encouragement of friends, I recently read The Shack by William P. Young. A national bestseller widely embraced by some churches and many professing Christians, The Shack is a work of fiction that embodies lengthy conversations between the main character, a man named Mack, and three persons who represent a version of the Trinity.
Frankly, I was dismayed at many messages conveyed by The Shack and have been surprised that many of my Christian friends have read the book uncritically, finding it a charming and heart-warming story. Some say that it is unfair to have theological expectations since the book is fiction. However, The Shack is marketed as a spiritually transforming book, and it being received that way by many.
It seems to me that a more critical reading is required of The Shack than a secular work of fiction because the author creates characters that purport to speak as God and to guide Mack on his spiritual journey. The fictional story becomes a device to have characters representing the Godhead explain a particular theology. As believers, our spiritual antennas should be fully deployed when we approach such a book.
In The Shack, God the Father appears to Mack as a large, jovial black woman whom Mack calls “Papa.” The Holy Spirit appears as a small Asian woman, and Jesus appears as a Jewish man. Putting aside gender confusion and the attempt to give human form and voice to the Father and Holy Spirit (“no man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:8), it is critical for the Christian reader to carefully consider the message author Young has those voices bring and to weigh their message in the light of the clear teaching of the Bible. That is to exercise discernment, a requirement – not an option – for Christians.
When we read The Shack with discernment, I submit that we find many distortions and untruths. Consider just a few of the words Young puts in the mouths of his created Trinity (my comments are within the parentheses):
Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)
Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)
Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)
Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)
Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)
Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)
When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)
Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)
The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.
My brothers and sisters, even in reading and discussing a work of fiction, we must be prepared to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to do so without apology to the world. The Shack may, from its human author’s viewpoint, be in all sincerity intended as an inviting look at a highly relational God, but would you place even a drop of poison in pure water and invite others to drink? As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, The Shack “contains undiluted heresy.” Don’t you and I have a responsibility to be equipped to recognize heresy and to shine the light of truth so that we and others are not deceived?
- Wayne Elliott
p.s. I addressed some of the objections to this review: Is the Shack Only Fiction?
Mark,
Thanks for the review. It squares with most other people’s view whom I respect.
Les
Mark:
Tremendous review! Thank you for this helpful insight into this popular and disturbing trend to fictionalize God and recreate Him in our own image.
May I also post this on my blog as well? Wayne did an excellent job.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24
Bro. Steve,
Please post it on your blog if you like. I’m sure Wayne would appreciate it.
I like that the review is to the point and won’t take too long to read.
Peace to you,
Mark
Thank you for this written analysis of what my heart/spirit was feeling as I read this book. I couldn’t articulate what seemed wrong. It is an easy and enjoyable read and contains some beautiful emotional healing and forgiveness which is made possible by our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross … but our God is Holy and His Word endures forever and The Shack fails to give glory to God as He reveals Himself in the Bible. I have been praying for God to reveal truth to me about this and to His children. I am sad that this books seems to be getting fully embraced and endorced by many many Christians. Praise Him for the gift of discernment. His Name is forever praised!
Excellent review!! I read “The Shack,” and Young would say something wonderful about the Lord, and then the next statement would be a direct word against the Word of God. James 1:4, 4:8, Young speaks double-minded. I get the feeling he hasn’t truly repented, so he speaks more from the mind that loves the world. I pray Christians would really dig in their Bibles, and get to learn Christian theology!!! Shelly Cox
Thank you all for your comments of appreciation. I’ve let bro. Wayne know and he is very encouraged.
His review was actually mentioned in our SS class this morning.
Mark
[...] “Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon [...]
Thanks for this review. I am in the process of reading it now and throughout the meeting of the 3 with Mack I sensed in my spirit that something was not right but could not put my finger on it until the part where Jesus did not declare himself THE Way.
Thanks again
Interesting review. Unfortunately, I think it not only misses the point of the book but seems to find criticism for the sake of criticism. Advice to Christians to be discerning is excellent. However, understanding must accompany discernment. The review seems short on understanding.
The overall theme of the book is the incredible love that God has for us and his desire to bring us into a close relationship with Him. That is a very powerful message and one that all Christians should let sink deeply into their soul. Secondly, this book is a story intended to convey that and other concepts. It is not presented as a complete theological exposition nor a factual account. Reading it literally misses the thrust of the story and paves the way for misconceptions.
Regarding some of the criticisms:
Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)
No, it’s not open theism. In the context of the story, God is simply saying that his majesty was being limited at that time so that there could be interaction with Mack. Do you not think that God limited his majesty in His interaction with Moses, Abraham, Paul, etc.? Nothing really novel there.
Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)
Of course God respects our choices. That’s called free will. God never forces his will on us. He respects (or allows) our right to choose. He then works with our choices, whether good or bad. Did God not respect Adam and Eve’s choice? He allowed them freely to choose to disobey and then worked with that historic choice to bring about reconciliation through Christ’s death and resurrection. It appears the reviewer may be confused by the limitation he has placed on the word “respect.” Respect means, among other things, a courteous regards for. God must respect, or give courteous regards towards, our choices, otherwise free will would not exist. Yet, that is one of the fundamental attibutes of our being and His nature. Again, nothing controversial there.
Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)
Is black a color or is it the absence of color? We know from science that it is the absence of color, which in a sense means that it has no independent existence. It’s existence can only exist in relation to color. I think what Young is getting at here is the perplexing question of why did God create evil. Perhaps He didn’t. If evil does not have a separate existence, then God did not create it. Like black, evil does not exist of itself but only in relation to good - which is God. Therefore, as one moves further from God, that state of being is defined as evil. Satan, who moved from so close to so far from God, is the ultimate expression of evil. But that can be said only in relation to God. In other words, without God, evil does not exist on its own. It exists only in relation to God as an adverse relationship - it increases as beings move away from complete Goodness who is God. That concept is what I think Young was conveying. The reviewer, in my opinion, completely missed the depth of the thought there.
Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)
After the discussion between Sophia and Mack, how could one possibly conclude that The Shack makes light work of the cross? Just the opposite is the case. The incredible sacrifice and love of God the Father and Jesus are vividly protrayed in that encounter. Do you think it is God’s “purpose” to punish for sin? Young is correct. Sin does eat away at a person to such an extent that it will devour the person who lives in it. Reading the book as a whole, I didn’t find the implication there at all. No, Young doesn’t say in the book that if one does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they will burn in hell for all eternity. Neither does he dispute that. Is it necessary in a sermon speaking of God’s love to also speak of hell or the sermon is in error? I don’t think so. Young conveys the same point by speaking of independence from God as leading to evil.
Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)
I believe Young was trying to expound on the nature of the relationship among the three persons of God and that relationship to us. That relationship is one of perfect love. God is perfect love. When you read Corinthians, Paul describes the nature of love. Certainly, there are elements of submission in the nature of love.
(To be continued)
Why are more of us not as balanced as Mike. What are we so afraid of? We act as though we need to defend God and close him up in our neat little thological boxes, and in so doing cause friction and strife among believers. All this negative flap about THE SHACK feels like a territorial battle to me.
Replace “thological” with theological in the above comment.
It comes down to Who is God and how has He revealed Himself to us?
(Gone til tonight…)
(Continued)
When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)
Yes, I didn’t quite understand what Young was getting at on this one either. I don’t think he was setting up an “if … then” scenario however because at a later point in that conversation God told Mack that He would mete out justice on the murderer, that it was not up to Mack to do so. I think the focus was more on forgiveness and the healing that Mack would experience by doing so rather than God then being allowed to redeem him. Obviously, God’s redemption of an individual has nothing to do with our prior forgiveness of that individual. I think Young was simply saying, forgive this person and give his redemption (or justice) up to God’s hands, not your own.
Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)
Jesus is the best way any human can relate to God. He is not the only way humans can relate to God. We can relate to God through the Holy Spirit. OT humans related to God without knowing Jesus. Persons today who have never heard of Jesus, or the God of the OT, but have a belief in a one almighty being, are relating to God. Jews are relating to God. However, Jesus is certainly the only way to salvation. Given the book as a whole, and Young’s stated beliefs elsewhere, I don’t believe Young was saying anything different.
The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.
I just don’t see this in the book. Young doesn’t emphasize scripture; neither does he say that it’s worthless or can be added to. The Shack is a fictional work about a visit and conversations with a man and God. In the course of those conversations, many scriptural concepts are validated. It would be odd in the context of the story for Papa to be talking about his love for his children, so much that Jesus sacrificed himself to bring reconciliation, and then throw out: “That’s in John 3:16 you know.” It just doesn’t fit with the story line. However, scripture is presented clearly in the context of the story. Nowhere that I read does Papa suggest that scripture is the work of man. He does imply that scripture can be misused by man, which it certainly can and has.
I may have missed it, but I didn’t see any “grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation”. For example, Papa said that what the murderer did was terrible and very wrong and that Mack had a right to be angry about it. Yet He also said that the murderer is one of his children and that He loves him also. Is that bad theology? Not based on my reading of scripture.
I believe it’s really a question of emphasis. Obviously, Young is emphasizing God’s infinite love and mercy, not his wrath and judgment. Does not Paul do the same thing in some of his letters and not others? Is a sermon in error that speaks only of God’s love and desire for relationship but does not add the caveat - you’ll go to hell if you don’t enter into that relationship? If so, I’ve heard a lot of sermons from solid Christian pastors in my years that would be considered a “grievous distortion”.
The Shack is about God’s overwhelming love for man and his desire to heal us emotionally so that we will be free to have a full relationship with him. It makes clear that Jesus is at the center of that plan. I cannot find fault in that message.
For you shall know them by there fruits.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.
The book The Shack, fictional as it may
be, is a love story. Just as the bible is
the love story of Christ. Religious people
will not accept this book, for they are still eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Those who eat from the tree of life will see the fruits. The author has simply expressed himself and his love for god. And just as Jesus was persecuted for doing so, So will be the author of The Shack. Aside from the bible itself, This is the best book I’ve ever read.
So Bryce, what are you saying? That those who don’t endorse The Shack
aren’ t Christians? Your reply didn’t make much sense.
Because people disagree with the author’s presentation of God as revealed in Scripture this is akin to Jesus persecution? Really now?
Those critiquing the book have simply expressed themselves and their love for God.
You need to read more.
Mark
Mike wrote: “The Shack is about God’s overwhelming love for man and his desire to heal us emotionally so that we will be free to have a full relationship with him. It makes clear that Jesus is at the center of that plan. I cannot find fault in that message.”
Actually, The Bible is about God’s overwhelming love and it is sufficient and necessary to understand God as He Himself has revealed Himself, not they way Mr. Young wants to imagine him. There is a huge difference between God putting His words in the mouths of the prophets and E.P. Young attempting to put his words into the mouth of God.
Mike also wrote: Papa said that what the murderer did was terrible and very wrong and that Mack had a right to be angry about it. Yet He also said that the murderer is one of his children and that He loves him also. Is that bad theology? Not based on my reading of scripture.
How do you reconcile your belief that God loves everyone without exception, regardless of what they have done with Scripture? It is only those whom Christ has called and exchange His righteousness for their sin that the Father looks on with love. Those unredeemed, unregenerate, and unrepentant sinners are judged, and unless you have completely misunderstood or disregarded the truth of God’s wrath, then your statement has no scriptural basis. Here are just a few passages that spring immediately to my mind that refute this idea that God is completely loving and forgiving, despite all of our shortcomings and open rebellion:
Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
Gal 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Joh 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?”
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
Joh 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
Mat 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Mat 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
Mat 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Mat 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
Mat 13:25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.
Mat 13:26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
Mat 13:27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
Mat 13:28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 “But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”
Mat 13:37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
Mat 13:38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
Mat 13:40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
Mat 13:41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
Mat 13:42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind;
Mat 13:48 and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away.
Mat 13:49 “So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
Mat 13:50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
1Jn 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2Pe 2:2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
2Pe 2:3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
2Pe 2:7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
2Pe 2:8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
2Pe 2:11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed,
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you,
2Pe 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children;
2Pe 2:15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17 These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.
2Pe 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,
2Pe 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pe 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
2Pe 2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”
In Christ,
Simple Mann
@Bryce - you wrote: The book The Shack, fictional as it may
be, is a love story. Just as the bible is
the love story of Christ. Religious people
will not accept this book, for they are still eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Those who eat from the tree of life will see the fruits. The author has simply expressed himself and his love for god. And just as Jesus was persecuted for doing so, So will be the author of The Shack. Aside from the bible itself, This is the best book I’ve ever read.
Wow, so those of us who read and trust in The Bible, God’s inspired and divinely revealed Word are guilty of eating from the tree of knowledge and so are condemned by it, and those who read and trust in the God of The Shack are eating from the tree of life? And comparing E. P. Young to Jesus, as if there is any similarity at all–that is outright blasphemy. And people wonder why discerning believers have a problem with this book and its author? Your sin finds you out.
Joh 3:19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
The best book I’ve ever read and the only one to truly change my life is the Bible. I highly recommend it to you. I would also recommend a little book by Frederick Leahy entitled “The Cross He Bore”. If you want a true love story and a real picture of Christ’s suffering–its purpose, it’s cause, and it’s effect–it will do you much more good than the fictitious work you have set as an idol in your heart.
http://www.amazon.com/Cross-He-Bore-Frederick-Leahy/dp/0851516939/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221061881&sr=1-1
I pray that your eyes will be opened, but unless God opens them you will be blind forever.
In Christ,
Simple Mann
Simple Mann,
Thank you for those comments.
I appreciate them.
In Him,
Mark
Well I haven’t read the book yet and I though I’d rather not waste my time I probably will anyway - simply for the purpose of seeing the debate.
That said…
The problem I already see with this book is that is causing division. Some see a problem, others love the “fictitious story”. Both sides could still very well be saved Christians, but one is right and one is wrong and it causes division.
The second problem I see is that (from excerpts I have read) it does in fact contradict scripture. Fiction or not this is very dangerous territory. It is very frustrating how many “spiritual” people are drawn in by books like this or about angels, or miracles or healing - that are slightly, way off base or just plainly have nothing to do with our true God, the Holy Spirit and His son Jesus. The bible warns over and over not to be deceived or to deceive others. Just my opinion.
It is very interesting to see such division among believers. Reminds me of the ” religious” Pharisees who also accused Jesus of blasphemy and heresy. God does not call us to legalism but to love…His love through the gift of salvation in Jesus. This love will always prevail…hence the message of The Shack!
@Susan - and here we have it again from someone who loves the shack. Here is the argument: If you reject the theology in the shack (which is not the theology of God), then you are a Pharisee. If you love the universalist message of the shack, then you have grace.
Here is the problem with that argument. I don’t think that anyone who has a problem with the shack are Old Testament legalists who seek to justify themselves by keeping the law of Moses. We do not seek to justify ourselves before God by our own righteous effort. We realize that without the saving grace of our Lord, we have absolutely nothing but our sin to hang on to.
The theology that is so important to us is the theology of God’s grace revealed by God through His word. It is essential to grasp that because unless you truly understand it, you cannot take hold of it. When someone comes along and preaches a different gospel, regardless of what they add or subtract, as followers of Christ we have been instructed to protect the body of believers from doctrinal error and falsehoods that would lead the sheep astray.
I understand that this book made a lot of people cry and then made them comfortable about their own painful experiences. The problem is, though, that a man has put his own words into God’s mouth in the shack (as if that were possible) rather than God putting them into a man’s (in the Bible).
Many people have read the shack and loved it. Many have claimed to have changed lives, although despite all of the claims I have not heard one single testimony about a changed life as a result of reading this book. And although everyone claims to love the Bible, there are honestly very few who read it and and truly dig into it. I think perhaps the most disturbing thing to me is the sheer number of people who are claiming to have that life-changing experience, a better understanding of God’s love, a better relationship with God, and all the other claims–NOT as a result of reading God’s word, BUT as a result of reading a work of FICTION! Surely the irony is not lost here. Here is the point I wish to posit. All of those changed lives, deeper understandings, improved relationships, being based NOT on God but on fiction are, in and of themselves, merely fictions, too!
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Joh 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Joh 3:21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
In Christ,
Simple Mann
Susan -
Should we also embrace “The Secret”, “A New Earth” or other books that contradict scripture, reveal new ideas and become instant best-sellers in “love”.
Yes we should love. We should also be very discerning, accept truth and reject lies. This isn’t legalism.
Simple Mann,
You said: “Actually, The Bible is about God’s overwhelming love and it is sufficient and necessary to understand God as He Himself has revealed Himself, not they way Mr. Young wants to imagine him. There is a huge difference between God putting His words in the mouths of the prophets and E.P. Young attempting to put his words into the mouth of God.”
Yes, the Bible is THE book about God’s love for man. It is sacred scripture and nothing rises to its level as the very word of God. That being said, however, it is erroneous, and quite surprising, to make the argument that nothing else should be considered in helping us to understand God. Do you also reject C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia? Do you reject the movie Joshua? Do you reject Michaelangelo’s interpretive painting of the Creation? Do you reject all sermons by pastors expounding on what this or that passage of the Bible really means? Do you reject Christian songs that “put words” into God’s mouth about his love for us? It seems to me if you reject The Shack on the basis stated, you have to reject everything.
You also wrote: “How do you reconcile your belief that God loves everyone without exception, regardless of what they have done with Scripture? It is only those whom Christ has called and exchange His righteousness for their sin that the Father looks on with love. Those unredeemed, unregenerate, and unrepentant sinners are judged, and unless you have completely misunderstood or disregarded the truth of God’s wrath, then your statement has no scriptural basis. Here are just a few passages that spring immediately to my mind that refute this idea that God is completely loving and forgiving, despite all of our shortcomings and open rebellion”.
All I can say to this is Wow! Your position on this represents a completely foreign concept to me about the nature of God. You’re saying that God does not love sinners??? He only loves those who have accepted Christ as their saviour??? That is quite a novel view. Based on the scriptures you provided, I think you are confusing judgment with love. Those scriptures say nothing about God’s love. I love my children, but that does not prevent me from punishing them when they have disobeyed.
Here are a couple scriptures for you to consider:
For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16.
Romans 6:6: You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
God demonstrated his love for us while we were still sinners. His love is manifest for sinners and saved. Those who accept Christ and enter into relationship with him will have eternal life. Those who die having rejected him will have eternal death. But, until death, God’s love is ever present to sinners and saints alike because “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9.
Honestly, I have never heard anyone take the position that God only loves those who repent. Are you saying that God hated me before I became a Christian? Did he hate Paul while he was persecuting the Christians? Did he hate John Newton while he was still a slave trader? Surely that is not the view you hold of God?
My main concern with the Shack is that it seems to smack of universalism. Papa calls everyone her children, seemingly whether they believe in Jesus or not. Yet the Bible says that we are adopted into God’s family when we accept Christ. You don’t adopt your own children. This is a dangerous teaching.
I appreciate the words of those who caution us to be discerning when reading a book like the shack. Yes, the book has some great thoughts regarding forgiveness and relationship, but at the same time, it falls short theologically, as has been adequately pointed out. We would be unwise to dismiss the criticisms. And, like it or not, theology IS important. As followers of Christ, we can’t let ourselves fall into the mindset that as long as we are loving people, it doesn’t matter so much what we believe. Yes, love is the greatest command, but it is not the only one. Jesus claimed to BE Truth. Jesus, as Messiah, was seen to be a prophet, a revealer OF Truth. As Christians (little Christs) we need to be in the business of being and revealing Truth as well. We are exhorted in Scripture to have sound doctrine. That is important to God. So if The Shack borders on heresy, in any way, it needs to be called out and brought to our attention. This is not unloving. It is a job of the Church, specifically of those with the gift of discernment. Those of us without as much discernment would do well to consider the words of our fellow believers.
The fact that many Christians are getting checks in their spirit or outright detecting theological error should give us pause. Nobody’s theology is perfect. We need to be able to eat the meat and spit the bones. But many of our concerns are for those people who aren’t able to discern the difference or who, in their zeal for the good aspects of the book, buy the falsehoods as well.
In Him,
DNelson
@Mike, you wrote: “Honestly, I have never heard anyone take the position that God only loves those who repent. Are you saying that God hated me before I became a Christian? Did he hate Paul while he was persecuting the Christians? Did he hate John Newton while he was still a slave trader? Surely that is not the view you hold of God?”
The only reference to the word “hate” from my previous post was from scripture itself:
Joh 3:17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Joh 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
You are trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say, just as your beloved author has done with God in the Shack. I did not say that God hated the unrepentant. Christ Himself declared that He came not for the righteous, but for sinners. I thank Him unceasingly for that because I was once dead and lost in sins and trespasses. But guess what? Even when I was dead and lost, I thought God not only loved me, but He accepted me just the way I was. And the fact of the matter was, I was at enmity with Him, as are most in the world. I rejected the Bible, I rejected sin, I rejected salvation and the need for a Savior. Interestingly enough, I could have read The Shack back then and thoroughly enjoyed it. I would have felt comfortable just being who I was, a Christ-rejecting sinner because of that message that no matter what God doesn’t just love me, He accepts me as I am. I am afraid that is NOT the case.
You quoted Romans. Read it in its entirety. Read the gospels, too. Please tell me where it says God forgives everyone out of His bountiful love. Meditate on His wrath a while. And while it’s easy to recognize and readily admit that “God hates sin”, as someone else said “God hates sin, but He punishes the sinners.” My Savior commanded repeatedly, “Repent” and “Go and sin no more”. He also had some harsh words for the religious people of His times that sought to justify themselves with their own works of righteousness.
In my opinion, any “Christian” work (fictitious or otherwise) that attempts to present a gospel message that does not confront sinners with the depravity of their sin and lead them to true repentance and faith in Christ, but rather leaves them comfortable and complete in their sin is dangerous and to be despised. To borrow a quote from Spurgeon, “If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell.”
In Christ,
Simple Mann
DNelson brought up another good point about the shack in that Papa calls everyone her children. I just posted this on my blog site today and thought it was worth sharing with regards to his comment…
Someone who visited my site today did so after entering the search term “testimonies from repentant satanists”. For just a second, I felt my pride begin to protest: “Wait a minute - I wasn’t a Satanist.” But in fact I guess I was. If you don’t belong to Christ, you belong to the enemy. If you are a slave to your sin and belong to the devil, you are a Satanist whether you wish to admit it or not. EVERY person who walks in darkness, holds fast to their sin, and rejects Christ is (to God) a Satanist regardless of the more euphemistic labels they choose for themselves.
Thank You, Lord, once again–that You opened my eyes in the darkness, that You resurrected my soul from the state of sin and death, and that You brought Your Life and Light into the darkness and deadness of my soul. May I never stop rejoicing for the work that You have done, are doing, and will continue. Praise the name of my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Joh 8:43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
Joh 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 “But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
Simple Mann,
It was not my intent to put words into your mouth. I was simply drawing a conclusion from what you had written and asking a question for clarification. If you did not mean that God hates the sinner prior to repentence, then did you mean that God is simply indifferent to him - neither loving nor hating? What is your scriptural support for that position?
You said: “I rejected the Bible, I rejected sin, I rejected salvation and the need for a Savior. Interestingly enough, I could have read The Shack back then and thoroughly enjoyed it.”
If what you say is true, then you would not have been giving a fair and honest reading to the book for Young makes it clear that the further we move away from Christ and a relationship with God the more evil we become. It is only in close, intimate relationship with God that we are truly living as God intended.
To me, what The Shack does is relate scripture to the audience with out using more commonplace terms. So, Young speaks of relationship with God rather than being “saved” for example. Why would that approach make the book erroneous?
You said: ” In my opinion, any “Christian” work (fictitious or otherwise) that attempts to present a gospel message that does not confront sinners with the depravity of their sin and lead them to true repentance and faith in Christ, but rather leaves them comfortable and complete in their sin is dangerous and to be despised.” You seem to be approaching the book as a Billy Graham crusade. It’s not aimed at sinners; it’s aimed at Christians. Young is really speaking to Christians who are struggling with emotional hurt in their lives and trying to answer questions such as “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?” A sermon on salvation will not help much in that regard. The book is beyond salvation. It is dealing with the Christian walk. As Hebrews 5 says: “13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”
So, do you believe that any Christian publication which does not relate the gospel of salvation is “dangerous and to be despised?” I’m sure there are many Christian authors that would be surprised to hear that about their books.
There is no need to admonish me to read Romans. Coincidentally, I read it 3 times in a row last month. It’s a beautiful book of the Bible. I’ve also read the 4 gospels a number of times as well. You said: “Please tell me where it says God forgives everyone out of His bountiful love.” Of course, I didn’t say that. To the contrary, I said: “Those who accept Christ and enter into relationship with him will have eternal life. Those who die having rejected him will have eternal death.” Brother, you’re reading things with blinders on wanting to find fault. Pride can stand in the way of discernment.
Rather than going away to meditate on God’s wrath, I think I will meditate on his love for “the Lord is my shepherd and I shall not want.”
Thank you Mike…it is refreshing to know someone “gets it”! The Shack is for the believer! It is not meant to replace scripture, however, we are humans trying to understand God and all He is and with every book ever written fiction or non, we will never fully grasp Him until we see Him in Glory!
Susan,
Whether the book was written for believers specifically or for the general public seems to be beside the point. The issue at hand is whether the book misrepresents God/reality/Christian Truth in any way - which is a serious charge no matter who the intended audience was. The original reviewer was right is saying that we Christians need to be more critical (in the positive sense) in our interaction with a book that purports to be giving truth about God. Truth is just too important to be treated nonchalantly.
DNelson
@Mike - What do you make of the following verses in regard to God’s love?
Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
Prov. 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”
Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
Rom 9:13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
You wrote:
You seem to be approaching the book as a Billy Graham crusade. It’s not aimed at sinners; it’s aimed at Christians. Young is really speaking to Christians who are struggling with emotional hurt in their lives and trying to answer questions such as “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?” A sermon on salvation will not help much in that regard. The book is beyond salvation.
Beyond salvation? I’m sure you will say I am an immature Christian, but how do you get over this magnificent grace? I pray I never get “beyond salvation”.
It is dealing with the Christian walk. As Hebrews 5 says: “13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”
Ah, here it is again. Just like Susan did earlier, you seem to insinuate that just being fed from the Bible is akin to milk, and that only the mature can digest the solid food of the shack. Do you really think that those folks reading the shack are being fed solid food while the rest of us who are turning to the Bible for nourishment are only getting milk? Wow.
So, do you believe that any Christian publication which does not relate the gospel of salvation is “dangerous and to be despised?” I’m sure there are many Christian authors that would be surprised to hear that about their books.
That is not at all what I said. I’ll paste the whole last paragraph here so you can read it again:
In my opinion, any “Christian” work (fictitious or otherwise) that attempts to present a gospel message that does not confront sinners with the depravity of their sin and lead them to true repentance and faith in Christ, but rather leaves them comfortable and complete in their sin is dangerous and to be despised. To borrow a quote from Spurgeon, “If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell.”
I was specifically addressing those works that put forth a gospel message, which is exactly what is being presented to Mack (and by proxy the reader) in the shack. I can’t believe that you would deny that. If it were not so, why would so many people be sending all those copies to their unbelieving friends (a testimony I’m sure we’ve all seen frequently repeated)?
I do not mean to seem uncharitable, but honestly, the arguments that I keep seeing people present to defend this book concern me as much as the subtly subversive nature of its message. That so many people sing its praises does not necessarily make it a good thing. There were many in the desert that sang praises to a golden calf, too. Yet God said:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6)
Might that include quaint old black women named Papa?
In Christ,
Simple Mann
Wow, well written post Simple Mann.
I am even more deeply disturbed now to hear the strong defense of this book; even right in the face of God’s Word.
A person I know, is currently reading this book even though I encouraged her not to. This person has rejected God many times verbally (or more accurately said that she has and “agreement with God”) and clings to quick “pick me up” books like this. I’m not surprised that she loves the book and argued that it is something to “introduce people into religion”.
Does anyone remember the book “Conversations with God”?
Hi everyone,
while discussing this book don’t forget to remember John 15,12:
“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.”
Greets, Samuel
Simple Mann,
Before responding in any detail, I would like to hear how you reconcile the verses in John and Romans I quoted previously with your views about God’s love, specifically, your view that God does not love us until we become saved.
That concept is so foreign to my understanding of God, as fully revealed in Christ, over the last 40 + years of my Chrisitianity that I’m honestly curious about it.
Simple Mann - PS to my prior post.
If God did not love you before you accepted Christ as you saviour, how was it that you became saved? Did you find God or did you respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Was God beckoning you to come to Him while you were yet in sin? Or, was it more like Dorothy finally finding the Great Oz on her own? If it was God pressing on your conscience, why would He even bother if He did not love you?
Hey all, one more word from me. I don’t think anyone is implying that God does not love sinners. The point is that he loves them though they are His enemies. They are not automatically His children simply because they are loved. Simple Mann is right in his consideration of those verses he quoted. Many in the church have taken the idea that “God is love” and reduced it to “God is only love.” The Shack paints this same one-dimensionalized picture of God. The Shack presents a soft God who chuckles at her rebellious “children” as just kids blowing off steam; just “fizz and vinegar,” she says. Scripture portrays a much more serious view of sin and God’s attitude toward it. Papa says that evil is simply the absence of good, and implies that hell, therefore, is simply the absence of God. The Jesus of the Bible, however, depicts a much more disturbing view of hell. Jesus told us to fear Him who has the power to throw us into hell. There is no real fear of God portrayed in this book. God is personified as a jolly Aunt Jemima type who is more of a peer than anything else. It is disappointing to see this view of God as our “big buddy in the sky” perpetuated in Christian writing. Or one might get the impression that God is a like a puppy, just waiting for us to call his name so that he run to us and show us how much he wants to please us. It’s a very human-centered perspective of God.
Christians would do well to “Consider the kindness and severity of God. (Romans 11:22)” In our day and age, we are hard-pressed to find a Christian who would admit God has a stern side. We don’t like to think about God’s severity because, frankly, it flies in the face of how we would like God to be, and what many of us have been taught that He is. We may even consider that view of God as a little outdated, set forth by folks who didn’t really understand the Bible. I think this perception of God is a backlash against the times in the past when people focused so much on God’s sternness that they had no joy or were downright mean. We need to get back to a balanced, biblically accurate view of God.
I think of Francis Schaeffer, who was all about believers developing such a strong Christian worldview that they could take a work of art (such as the Shack) and be able to dissect it into the parts that were truthful (i.e. lined up with orthodox Christian doctrine) and the parts where it fell short of Truth. Most of this book’s critics that I’ve read are attempting to do that. They are not saying that there is nothing positive about the book. The Shack is popular for a reason. Clearly, it is striking a chord with a large number of people who may be dealing with issues such as Mack. God is, no doubt, using this book to reach some. We cannot dismiss the book wholesale. But the critics are pointing out that the book has some places where Truth is perhaps skewed. And you know what? We need to be listening. These people play an important role in the Kingdom. This is the body principle at work. Instead of poo-pooing these people as being heresy hunters and fault-finders, we need to consider what is being said.
Truth and love are not enemies. We must figure out how to love without compromising Truth. William P. Young himself, quoted Jean Jacques Rousseau at the beginning of one of the chapters that said, “Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being.” Like it or not, Christianity claims to be absolute Truth. We cannot compromise by letting falsehoods insidiously slide through – especially in the case of a novel that is having such an impact on the church. Let’s praise this book where it deserves to be praised (and there is much to be), but let’s admit and bring to light the areas where it falls short of orthodoxy and presents a blurred version of God and salvation.
Keep the faith,
DNelson
DNelson,
You raise very good points and I don’t really disagree with the core of what you are saying.
However, I do have to disagree about the genesis of this discussion on love. It started when SimpleMann wrote early on: “How do you reconcile your belief that God loves everyone without exception, regardless of what they have done with Scripture? It is only those whom Christ has called and exchange His righteousness for their sin that the Father looks on with love. Those unredeemed, unregenerate, and unrepentant sinners are judged, and unless you have completely misunderstood or disregarded the truth of God’s wrath, then your statement has no scriptural basis.”
I think quite clearly SimpleMann is not only implying but stating directly that God does not love sinners. It seems you would disagree with that position as I think the vast majority of Christians would. That’s why I found his statement in that regard so astonishing.
I never stated at any time that The Shack was perfect nor that it stated perfect theology. In reality, I don’t think any human author can reach that level. However, I am quite surprised that people would call it heresy, dangerous and subversive. That view does not square with scripture either and is unnecessarily harsh on a subject that God wants us to fully comprehend - his love and reconciliation. Yes, judgment of the wicked is a feature of God. However, I would challenge you to count the number of times the word “love” and its synonyms are used in the NT vs. wrath and judgment. I could be wrong but my guess is that love overwhelms judgment.
My view is really more along the lines of Ben Witherington, who after a long critique of the book, wrote: “I am thankful for this novel, and its strong stress on the relational and deeply personal nature of our God. I am equally thankful for the message that God is much greater than we could ever think or imagine. I like as well the emphasis on love and freedom, rightly understood, as well as its admission that not all roads lead to God, for Jesus is the way. But on its next lap around the revising track, and before it goes into somebody’s movie, it needs to make a pit stop for some more theological tune ups. ”
Let me ask you, in you everyday walk with Christ, do you focus on your relationship with him, his overwhelming love for you and your love for him, or your concern that if you don’t do “what’s right”, you could go to hell? Personally, although I occasionally have thoughts about the latter, it is when I focus on the former that I grow in intimacy and relationship with God, which is what He calls us to do. It’s a matter of emphasis. Could Young have emphasized hell and damnation more? Certainly he could have. However, based on what I’ve read about his life, it wasn’t God’s wrath that saved him from the pit of despair and depression but His infinite love. That’s what he wanted to convey to his children. That compelling message is an accurate view of God’s relationship with man, and the way he chose to convey that message, in my opinion, does nothing to lead others away from Christ as the only way to God nor to an incorrect view of God.
@Mike, you wrote: Before responding in any detail, I would like to hear how you reconcile the verses in John and Romans I quoted previously with your views about God’s love, specifically, your view that God does not love us until we become saved.
Once again you have again misconstrued everything I have written by continuing to assert that my position is “God does not love us until we become saved” when I have said nothing of the sort. Please read what I have written more carefully.
I “reconcile” the verses you quoted from John (3:16) and Romans (6:6-11) that demonstrate God’s love by reading them in context with the rest of what is written in John and in Romans. In fact, I included Romans 9:10-15, John 14:22-24, John 15:5-6, Matthew 7:15-23, Matthew 13:24-30,37-42,47-50, 1 John 1:5-10, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Galatians 5:19-21. These are not words that I have written.
Can you explain God’s love for Pharaoh? Or the Egyptians? And what about the Philistines? How about the Baal-worshipers? And the wicked people in the time of Noah? What of those who defile His name, and who hate His Son? What of those who live for their own glory, for their lusts, for the world? Who worship false gods and idols? If He loves all of these so much, then why are they judged? Why does His wrath sit upon them? And why are they cast into Hell? Why are they not reconciled to Him through His Son? Indeed, if God loves all unequivocally, why did Jesus even need to die to atone for sin?
He chooses some for salvation and passes others by. I do not understand this, but it is right there in Scripture. Far be it from me argue with God. A.W. Pink wrote in his book, The Sovereignty of God, “God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody.” This is obviously completely foreign to you, but it is not a novel concept, for it is imminently revealed in Scripture. I am surprised it is so repulsive to you.
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)
In Christ,
Simple Mann
@Mike (again) - this is becoming tiresome…
You wrote: I think quite clearly SimpleMann is not only implying but stating directly that God does not love sinners. It seems you would disagree with that position as I think the vast majority of Christians would. That’s why I found his statement in that regard so astonishing.
Once again, that is not at all what I said or implied. For what it’s worth, I do not agree with your rendition of what I said, either. But it’s not what I actually said.
Guess what? We are ALL sinners.
Rom 3:10 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
Again, we are ALL sinners. But we are *not* ALL saved by grace. We are not all regenerate, new creations in Christ. We are not all justified. We do not earn our salvation because of anything we can accomplish and we are not justified because there is anything within us that gives us special merit. We are all of us unworthy, all of us sinners. But God does NOT save all. I agree completely with Paul who wrote, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” However, I do not believe that Christ died for all.
And as for the heretical elements in the shack, I read just a few pages around page 120 or so last night, and while much of what was said during the theological discussions was sound, there were little trojan horse statements that clearly contradict Scripture. Papa was surprised by a question regarding authority (God must not be omniscient), stated that Creation did not really turn out as intended (must not be omnipotent either), and religious and political institutions were completely shunned (which includes the Church our Savior died for).
And despite the common objection that the shack is a work of fiction and not theology, the vast majority of conversations in the shack revolve around theological discussions dealing with the nature of God. The problem, as some of us have pointed out, is that while they often contain a fair amount of truth, there are far too often elements intertwined with that truth that are completely antithetical to Scripture. As I said once already, it just takes a little bit of arsenic an otherwise terrific meal…
In Christ,
Simple Mann
Mike,
Good word. Ben Witherington hit the nail on the head.
DNelson
Simple Mann,
I’m sorry for being so dense. Now I understand what you are saying. I didn’t realize until your last post that you are a Calvinist and believe in predestination.
Now, not by way of judgment, but just by way of observation, it is most interesting that you find serious fault with The Shack as being unBiblical while at the same time holding to a particular belief which many in the Church condemn as heresy.
Now that I understand your belief framework, I understand why you find The Shack so objectionable. Needless to say, predesination is not a concept that has wide acceptance as correct doctrine. Since I don’t want to launch into a huge debate over that subject in this context, I’ll call it quits here.
Mike,
I searched the posts above and the only mention of predestination I see is yours. Of all the reviews I’ve read I have not seen an objection relating to predestination. Besides, all Christians believe in predestination. The Bible teaches it.
Sorry I haven’t really been back to these comments yet. I hope to catch up soon!
Mark
Mike,
Funny that you reject something that is clearly taught in Scripture as heresy, yet embrace and defend the shack so vehemently.
There is absolutely no question about the fact that the Word of God teaches the doctrine of predestination. It is taught throughout the Scriptures and clearly stated in numerous passages of Inspiration:
Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Rom. 8:29,30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Eph. 1:3, 6, 11 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
2 Tim. 1:9-10 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
2 Thess. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth
1 Pet. 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
John 6:37;17:2-24 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out…As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Rev. 13:8; 17:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world… The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Dan. 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
1 Thess. 5:9,10a For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who died for us…
Obviously, these do not jibe with the teachings in the shack. As for me, I will trust in Scripture.
In Christ,
Simple Mann
@DNelson - you wrote: Truth and love are not enemies. We must figure out how to love without compromising Truth. William P. Young himself, quoted Jean Jacques Rousseau at the beginning of one of the chapters that said, “Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being.” Like it or not, Christianity claims to be absolute Truth. We cannot compromise by letting falsehoods insidiously slide through – especially in the case of a novel that is having such an impact on the church. Let’s praise this book where it deserves to be praised (and there is much to be), but let’s admit and bring to light the areas where it falls short of orthodoxy and presents a blurred version of God and salvation.
You make an excellent point. I thought one of the most interesting statements in the book (in my opinion) was on page 123, where Sarayu (Young’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit) warns: “Don’t confuse adaptation with intention, or seduction for reality.”
In Christ,
Simple Mann
I recommend this book. It’s not heresy. It’s a fictional piece of work that helps a man struggling with something unbearable and impossible to understand. I’ve read through all the comments above and think the point gets missed in this novel by many readers. More than likely, only those who have suffered a tremendous loss (like our lead character) can relate to these feelings and questions. In the end, the author is challenging the preconceived ideas of what God thinks of creation and how we are to make sense of the chaos we live in. Much can be taken from this book that will help us in our understanding of God’s grace and love towards creation. This isn’t the full picture of who He is. Neither is any other piece of literature. In fact, the Bible doesn’t fully grasp God in His entirety… partially because we are limited in our understading, but also because words cannot truly describe Him anyway. Beauty, music, life… these all give a glimpse of who He is, but we’ll never really get it until we reach eternity.
Before I get bombarded with anything, let me state that there is no better place to find out who God is than in the Bible. It is the final word on all theological debate regarding this book, but it’s also important to step back and rethink and challenge the ideas of who we think God really is. Sometimes we put Him in a box. Sometimes we are so convinced we have Him figured out that we won’t listen to anyone or anything that challenges our ideas. This book may make you cringe at times, but each of us must run these feelings and thoughts through the filter of God’s Word (which is exactly what I see happening through these posts!)
Final thought: God loves an honest question… and that’s what is great about this book. Here we are, talking about Him and learning from each other. But let’s remember one very important thing… we are all lacking in our understanding of God… let’s not get too boastful and proud of the few things that God may have gracefully revealed to us about who He really is, and in love and respect discuss what we have learned and believe as we each “work out our own salvation.” God is using this book to reach into the hearts of people… don’t discount that, even if there are some mistakes. When someone says they are reading this book, rather than talking negatively about the book, why not use it as an opportunity to delve into a deep discussion with a fellow searcher of the truth. Perhaps you will have some answers, or perhaps they will. Whether they are a believer in Christ or not, this book is creating opportinities to know and understand God more and the relationship He desires with creation.
John Mark wrote: “I searched the posts above and the only mention of predestination I see is yours. Of all the reviews I’ve read I have not seen an objection relating to predestination. Besides, all Christians believe in predestination. The Bible teaches it.”
It is clear that SimpleMann, from what he was saying, is a Calvinist. He didn’t use the term predestination, but his comments were, in retrospect, Calvinist.
If you mean that all Christians believe in predestination as that word is used as a shorthand for Calvinism, then no, all Christians do not believe in it. At present, Calvinism is be