The Shack Is Only Fiction?
I wanted to take a few moments to respond to some of the comments from one of my posts The Shack Review.
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.
Criticism is found for the sake of being accurate as to how God has revealed Himself through Scripture. It seems that those promoting and praising The Shack seem to be short on understanding discernment. Even a friend of mine who enjoyed the book admitted there are things in the book to be cautious of.
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.
The “message” might be good overall, but just “who” is this message portrayed as being from? The God of the Bible? It sure doesn’t seem like it. Such a powerful emotional message may be fine, but if God is not represented accurately then all that’s left is a a “powerful message” based on self.
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.
There are stories in the Bible that are not to be taken literally, however, they do expound upon and help explain who God is. It may not be a “complete” theological exposition, but it is a theological exposition none the less. It certainly covers some of the major themes as to who God is, how He works, His omniscience, omnipotence and sovereignty. For such an incomplete theological approach it certainly covers much ground.
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.
First, it is a form of open theism see this article from Banner of Truth. God doesn’t need to limit Himself to interact with us. This could lead to a very passive, impersonal god, but we know the only God (of Christianity) is a personal God who interacts with His creation. So if we applied this limitation of “majesty” to God then we’d essentially have a personal, interactive yet powerless God.
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?
Respects in what way? We are free to do what we want and what we want is to sin as we are born sinners. If God respected our choices as the commenter claims then we’d have no grace to be saved by since we don’t ask for it. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be grace. Do you think Nebuchadnezzar freely lived like an animal? Adam and Eve had consequences for their choices, but they weren’t respected in a way that God just let them do what they wanted. Besides, the crucifixion was planned from the foundations of the world so there was no surprise their for God in the self-limiting way.
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….That concept is what I think Young was conveying. The reviewer, in my opinion, completely missed the depth of the thought there. [Emphasis mine.]
We aren’t talking about what science says. And notice that the commenter doesn’t seem to be sure what Young was saying, builds his argument on what he thinks and then tells us Bro. Wayne is wrong.
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.
A just God requires punishment for sin. Sin doesn’t eat away at everyone, but many people love their sin. For example, do you think Hugh Hefner’s sinful life experiences are eating away at him? Provers 16:4 tells us that even the wicked have a purpose. I’ve not quite figured out where Young stands on salvation of everyone vs. only those who believe. Just listen to his interview with Matt Slick.
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.
God is not just love. Young says different things concerning the relationship of the Trinity. He said as much in the interview with Matt above such as the Father being on the cross with Jesus and having nail marks just as Jesus does. And thinks like when “We” incarnated when only Jesus was incarnate.
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 [theological] 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.
We are afraid of offending the very God we serve by redefining Him. We could say the same about Young who is coming out presenting God in his own theological book (box) and, therefore, causing strife. All this positive flap about The Shack feels like Young wants to worship God on his personal territory.
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.
I guess it depends on what we mean by relate. If we are not relating to God salvifically then we are relating to Him through His judgment. I don’t believe most people would appreciate nor accept that they were relating to God through His judgment.
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.
Scriptural concepts of God aren’t validated as many have many pointed out. As our friend, Tim Challies, pointed out in his review about what Young says about Scripture, “In seminary [Mac] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects… Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” Does this sound like an uplifting of Scripture? Just look at what supporters of The Shack are saying about those who are critiquing this book. Why shouldn’t those of us who want to defend the Bible have a similar attitude?
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.
The Shack uses anthromorphisms for God in a way that Scripture never uses. Yes, it is bad theology. Did not even Jesus tell us that some were of their father, the devil? The murderer who has not repented and believed is not adopted as a child of God.
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”.
It is a question of emphasis. Understanding God how we want vs. understanding Him how He’s revealed Himself in Scripture. The problem is that The Shack is a complete life journey which people are praising and looking to for spiritual growth, not just one sermon or letter.
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!
It should remind one of the Pharisees to some extent, but to the opposite of what this commenter states. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as He revealed Himself to them. This comes back again to the question of which Jesus? The Pharisees did not grasp Jesus as revealed in prophecy nor in person as we read about in the New Testament. They did not want the real Jesus.
…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!
How can we try to understand God in Scripture if we set our view of Him up in opposition to what He’s revealed to us? I posit we will have a much harder time grasping Him when we are clouding our own vision.
We are saved by grace through faith and that faith must have an object, Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. The positive reviews I’ve read seem to support The Shack from the position of feelings and experience. Those feelings and experience need to be grounded in Who God is as He’s revealed Himself in Scripture. If they are not grounded as such then what is the basis for true spiritual growth through any experience or feeling? It seems as though many people are trying to divorce theology from….theology. Or to put it more clearly. We cannot divorce our relationship with God from theology for this position is itself theological.
As Bro. Wayne said about this book and it’s lack of theological grounding, “Why encourage confusion in the presentation?”
For what it’s worth,
Mark
Amen, Brother. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the various comments in the post, johnMark.
I’m sharing a portion of a post from my own blog that I wrote a couple of weeks ago. It was actually inspired by another emergent influence (Rob Bell) but I think it is just as applicable to William Young and his book, the shack…
(From Faith, Fenceposts, Bells, and Whistles)
I know several well-meaning Christians who would say, “Calvinist, Baptist, Methodist, Arminian, Charismatic, conservative, postmodern–who cares!? All that matters is belief in Christ!” And while in one sense, “All that matters is belief in Christ” is right, it is absolutely crucial to believe in Him rightly. If I believe Jesus was just a man like any other, perhaps maybe one of the most impressive and influential men who ever lived, does that belief in Him constitute saving faith? If I believe that He was God incarnate and that His death on the cross saved *everyone* without any requirement or responsibility (meaning therefore it is acceptable to continue in sin), does that constitute saving faith? If I believe Jesus is just one way to get to Heaven, and not the ONLY Way, the True Way, is that saving faith?
Clearly Scripture denies every single one of those arguments, and so many more that twist and distort the true nature of who He is. In the 12-step program of Alcholics Anonymous, one of their steps of recovery is identifying with a Higher Power. But that higher power can be anything–even a fence post. This seems like a rather obvious error to most self-professing Christians; this is a form of idolatry, placing something that is clearly not God in the throne of our worship. But the problem is that many who call themselves Christians might as well worship fence posts because the conception they have of Jesus Christ is not Who He has revealed Himself to be–not the person of the Son that God made manifest–but something man has made and put in His place.
If we were to take a name tag of the sort we often don at conferences and seminars, write the name of Jesus on it, and then walk around for a little bit until we found some other person or thing that we felt best represented our concept of Jesus and apply that name tag to it, would that make it Jesus? Absolutely not. When we put in those terms, it seems so ridiculous it’s almost laughable. Yet, that is what so many people do. And because they have taken their little label that they scrawled “Jesus” on (in their own handwriting) and affixed it to some object of their own imagination, they think that they believe in Jesus and thus that they are saved. This, of course, is foolishness. It is but one lane on the wide road to destruction.
If we are listening to people who have a wrong understanding of Jesus–who have only written His name and attached it to ideas and objects of their own making, not what He has revealed about Himself through Scripture–and accepting their teachings, then what we are believing in is NOT the Jesus of the Bible who draws sinners to Himself, bears the burdens of their sins, takes their death in sin and gives them His own life in righteousness. If we are bowing down and worshiping fence posts that simply have a name-tag on them and trusting in them for salvation, we are no less lost than atheists who deny Christ outright. And if we say we believe in Jesus, but we have not received a new heart that longs for the Truth we find in Him and in His Word–if, in fact, there has been no regenerating work in our hearts to draw us like moths to a porch-light–then may our eyes be opened to the Truth of our error and may all our false notions fall away. But if we are worshiping Him rightly, may we boldly proclaim His Name and stand against those who promote deception by their improper use of it, regardless of the judgment and the persecution we may draw.
John 15:18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
John 15:19 “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
John 15:20 “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
John 15:21 “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.
John 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
John 15:23 “He who hates Me hates My Father also.
John 15:24 “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
John 15:25 “But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’
Peace & Blessings,
Simple Mann
Bro. Simple Mann,
I appreciate your comments and support on this thread and the other.
Blessings,
Mark
My brief review of The Shack, posted above by my friend John Mark, seems to be accomplishing what was intended - encouraging believers to exercise Biblically based discernment. Many on this blog seem determined to prayerfully and thoughtfully discern the Lord’s revelation of Himself in scripture, not relying on their own imagination or projections to create a god in their own image. Thank you for engaging the battle, brothers. And thank you, John Mark, for your work in defending the revealed Truth.