I only wish that I had discovered this website a long time ago….

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

Also, this shows one of the downsides of technology. Theological positions as offered by The Shack are so easily and quickly disseminated to many flocks. Pastors cannot as easily keep up. At the same time there are churches who invited William Young to their pulpits. The way things go “viral” today is both good and bad. Yet, this brings us full circle for another reason to find biblical discernment.

“All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals — and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe.

The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books — we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible's teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers.

The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine.”

Amen.

Even as Wayne Jacobson and others complain of those who identify heresy within The Shack, the fact is that the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that — heresy. The obvious question is this: How is it that so many evangelical Christians seem to be drawn not only to this story, but to the theology presented in the narrative — a theology at so many points in conflict with evangelical convictions?

Seeking Wisdom and the Truth, in Love,

Nate

Sorry to jump in, but I am genuinely interested in your argument. I hear similar logic quite often and I have never understood it. But I'm quite happy to be corrected myself if it's me that's got my thinking all wrong…

You say these two interesting things:
“…the way I see it is everyone's problem is they all think that they're right.”
“And that my friends, is Wrong.”

My questions would be these:
Do you think that you are right when you make the statement that others who think themselves right are actually wrong? If so, how come you are allowed to think yourself right, but others aren't?

Then you say (paraphrased), “Leading souls to Christ is what it's all about.”

Again, do you think that this statement is right? And if so, aren't you falling into the same “Wrongness” as all the unloving, proud “old men” that you're correcting?

Hope that makes some sense,
John.
[A young (ish) man who is constantly having to check himself for being proud and unloving.]

As an 18-year-old, here's a word of advice: Try being a little sympathetic to the other side of a discussion.

Your snide comments regarding Young not writing this book for Mr Lamprecht is a little, well, rude. I'm sure Mr Lamprecht is aware that the book is not written for him alone. Secondly, your view of what being a Christian is all about is a little lobsided. Indeed, it is a relationship with Jesus Christ, but allow me to use an analogy. If you had a girlfriend, could you honestly call it a relationship if anything you knew about her was a complete fabrication? No, we call that being deluded. It is the same thing with being a Christian – our relationship with Christ is built on the truths of Scripture. Young's book makes claims about how God is, what God does and how we are in relationship with him – all those things are important, and if someone is getting those things wrong, then it is highly important that those errors are sorted out.

You seem to be hooked on having a relationship, but also seem to forget that the relationship is built on doctrine – truths which Scripture tells us about God, Jesus and the Christian life. Young distorts those facts, and distorted facts lead to a distorted relationship. Believe me, I am passionate about evangelism and reaching folks with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we don't water down that message or bend the facts to make God look more loving than Scripture reveals, even if it's nice.

Finally, the unsaved person who happened to come across this post and yearned for the way of salvation wouldn't automatically switch off, because someone disagreed with a book. Give people a little credit…

My point being that many people think doctrine is divisive to the church; but the truth of the matter is, BAD doctrine is divisive to the church.

Stephen, it does indeed take discernment to determine how much time, if any, should be spent on any given piece of foolishness, like this book. I believe God does lead some to invest a bit of time in order to see the issues and try to help identify them to others. But I agree with you – there is much, much better material to be spending time with, most notably the scriptures themselves.

First, it is very difficult to reason the way you are attempting. On my modalism example, it was just an example not a full blown explanation and rebuttal. The ironic thing is when you quote me saying:

“God being manifest in three persons”

Followed by your refutation that my statement

…does not even come close to pointing to modalism. Modalism says that God was first God the father, then God the Son, and then God the Holy Spirit.

You have actually just restated my example. Anyways…check the Apologetics Index on TD Jakes to understand the manifestation language.

As to pantheism, if you really want to argue more with someone I suggest a href=”http://sometrueword.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-true-words-about-shack.html”>a Shack Attack or Shaky Shack which also claim pantheistic statements in the book.

It is also interesting to note that the Universal Pantheist Society site states partially in defining pantheism that:

Pantheists believe in Divine Immanence. To the Pantheist, divinity does not transcend reality; it surrounds, and is within. All share divinity. This leads the pantheist to personal ethics of tolerance and understanding.

After 400+ comments on this thread I don't desire this back and forth. I even stopped updated my Shack Reviews page even though there have been many more reviews.

You've said your peace and made some very assumptive charges. You know nothing about my personal life nor ministry, but you make charges anyways. You move from critique to person. My congregation saw fit that I was qualified to be a deacon to serve and lead them. They know me, you don't. Yet you presume away.

Even the Apostle Paul disagreed with Peter as well as the Athenians at Mars Hill. He confronted error. We are called to do so as well. If I discipled people without pointing out and correcting error I would not be disciplining them.

You've made some statements and they are here for all to see. Maybe it is time for you to start your own blog. As for this blog, that's all folks!

Oh yeah, thanks for rocking my beliefs. Take care.

Webster’s dictionary defines Pantheism two ways. 1) 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. 2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire).

And here's what Wayne said: “Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)”

“God in all things.” I love this one. First of all, the sentence doesn’t even come close to saying that, but isn’t this a classic example of one of man’s “manufactured” sins? Well, if we see God in all things, (even though he in essence is in all things, as he created everything) therefore, that could mean that we might – and notice I said might – start worshiping those things, so if we see God in all things, it’s idolatry; and therefore a sin.

What a laughable bunch of bunk. God gave us the beauty and power of nature so we COULD see him in all things. Show me the verse that says that seeing God in all things is a sin? Oh, sure, you’ll be able to show me verses that say idolatry is wrong, and that it’s wrong to worship nature, but you will never find a verse that says it’s wrong to see God in all things.

This is a manufactured sin, much like the “sin” of drinking alcohol. Pretty much every church you go to today will tell you that drinking is a sin. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Bible says. There are several places in the Bible where drinking is actually encouraged, such as when Paul tells Timothy to “take a little wine for your stomach.” Actually, the Bible is quite clear on this. Drinking is not a sin. Drunkenness is. But man has “manufactured” drinking into being a sin.

And this one is classic. “In your first objection you mention that the book doesn't refer to pantheism. It doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned by name.”

OK, so if I “interpret” what you say to mean this or that, then what I think becomes what you mean? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter what someone actually says, if I “think” you meant this or that, therefore that’s what you meant, even though you really meant something else? That’s called jumping to conclusions, and it's disgusting. It's a lie.

Look at your statement here: For example, if someone wrote about 'God being manifest in three persons' this statement point to a modalistic understanding of God denying the Trinity. Yet neither modalism nor Trinity are mentioned. It is a description of a position without naming the position itself.

No, your drawing that conclusion from that statement is, in fact, a gross distortion of what was actually said there. “God being manifest in three persons” does not even come close to pointing to modalism. Modalism says that God was first God the father, then God the Son, and then God the Holy Spirit. What gives you the right to read modalism into a statement like that? Maybe you would prefer that the statement would be worded differently, but on it's face, that statement is true. God is indeed manifest in three persons! How on earth does that statement deny the trinity? More “manufactured” nonsense. You simply don’t have the right to read whatever you want into what people say, and that’s why I’m so upset here. Wayne did a hatchet job on Young’s work, and twisted what he wrote into saying what he never intended, and just like a lemming to the sea, you followed along behind him, agreeing the whole way.

You see, it’s attitudes such as yours that have led to all the divisions in the church today. Rather than seeking to have a closer relationship with God, you want to expend all your energy on the minutia; on “the rules.” Unfortunately, most of your “rules” are of your own invention. And that’s why people like you hate “The Shack,” because the book exposes you for who you are. The main point of the book is that “it’s not about the rules, it’s about relationship,” and as one who is caught up in the rules, you got stung by the book’s message. You run around looking for “sin” under every teacup and bushel basket, and never really figure out what it is that God really wants from you, and never seek the kind of relationship God wants to have with you. Everything is a plot, or contains some hidden message or agenda, and you just can’t come to see the good that is all around you. You’d have fit right in during the Spanish Inquisition. Now why don't you go find something productive to do with yourself rather than trying to tear down something that God as blessed the way he had blessed The Shack.

OK, so that was my first point. Care to address my other two?

Mark, fasten your seat-belts.
Your beliefs are about to be rocked.

For example, if someone wrote about 'God being manifest in three persons' this statement point to a modalistic understanding of God denying the Trinity. Yet neither modalism nor Trinity are mentioned. It is a description of a position without naming the position itself.

No one is addressing your original post because they probably don't see your objections as valid. You may even be misunderstanding Wayne's position.

No one is running. I get thousands of hits per month and these comments are here for all to read. If it makes you feel better to believe someone is running from your objections then by all means pat yourself on the back, enjoy and smile.

The simple fact is, nobody will address my original post, which tells me I hit a sore spot that nobody knows how to (or has the guts to) deal with. So ban me. That would be the easy way out for you, wouldn't it? That way, you wouldn't have to deal with my objections, would you? In the immortal words of Monty Python: “Run away. …Run away.”

Wayne did not distort what Young wrote. He analyzed what Young wrote about God in light of what the Bible says about God. You might not agree with Wayne though many do. Wayne is not distorting, but analyzing and challenging Young's theological positions. It is what Darrin said above, disagreement.

Just as above where you say Wayne is wrong. You are challenging his position because you disagree. I understand that you disagree, but that doesn't mean you are playing word games.

I've only banned one person on this blog and that was for a short time. I would appreciate if you changed your tone. If not, then please comment else where or I will ban you.