The Shack

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:21 am

Dwight- were not both males AND females created in the image of God? If God is only male, how can that be?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:36 am

So what are you saying? That God is BOTH male and female?

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let THEM rule over ...

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So it does appear that in some way, God has some female characteristics, but in both verses the man and the woman, taken together, are called "man". The designation of God never changes to "She" or "Her".

Obviously, we are discussing something that is way beyond our finite minds - the "person" of God. Of course we can never put Him in a box. But He does give us little hints here and there about Himself and I think that we should think of Him in the exact terms that He uses for Himself, even though I am sure we do not fully understand His personhood. One thing we do know: He does not ever appear as a woman in some cases and then a man in other cases.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:36 am

Si wrote:I honestly had not heard of this book or movie until recently. Personally, I think I owe it to Mr. Young to let him define what message he intends to convey with his creative work. If he says his work means A, and the critics say he means B, he is misrepresented. The problem with movies or books like this is, a frenzy gets whipped up, and countless people pass on condemnation based on what a critic says, and then read the book or watch the movie through that filter, without even letting the creator speak for himself. That is neither fair nor accurate.
Dwight: I read the book back when it came out and underlined many problem passages long before hearing what others said about it. I saw my daughter reading it and she talked to me about it. As I recall, she had no extensive comments about it, positive or negative, other than to say that it was "different" and that she enjoyed reading it. To this day, I have never read or heard Young's own interpretation of his book, but certainly am open to that. In fact, I will probably try to find that online. But he seems to express himself quite well in the book, so that there is no huge problem understanding what he is saying. The "critics" that I depend on are godly men who are well known in the Christian world. Some of them are well known pastors or teachers. John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Chuck Swindoll, Chuck Smith, Al Mohler, Michael Youssef, Walter Martin, Hank Hanegraaf, Steve Gregg, Frances Schafer, and the list goes on. If any of these guys "pass on condemnation", I sit up and take notice. Not that I agree with everything they say, but they aren't known for condemning anything lightly or without scriptural justification.

Dwight: Even if I had heard ALL of these men's opinion about "The Shack" before ever reading the book, I still believe it would be fair and accurate. Why? Because I trust them. They have earned a good reputation. I do not trust William Young and IMO, he has not earned a good reputation. Even now, it appears to me that money is part of his motivation. I could be wrong, but he must have made gazillions on the books and now, the movie.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:11 am

I just finished watching William Young on youtube telling his story of The Shack. Basically it was his life story and it was very moving. I can relate to a lot of what he went through, minus the worst part, thank God, i.e. the sexual abuse from other kids and the angry father. But the religious trappings that give the wrong message about who God is and who Jesus is were there as I grew up.

It is so sad that his parents were in New Guinea to bring the gospel to the native people and yet they forgot their first mission field - their own children. He even said that his parents and the other missionaries believed that they had to 'sacrifice" their children for the sake of bringing the gospel to the natives of New Guinea. Those children can so easily see God as the one who doesn't allow them to be the top priority for their parents. Then, to make things even worse, to be sexually abused by the other missionary kids and to have a father that is very angry - what a tragedy!

I wish that he would have written his life story rather than The Shack. To me, that is much more powerful.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:16 am

Perhaps he was called to write The Shack instead of an autobiography. Thousands of people testify how the book has helped them "heal" an improper view of God.

I am lucky to have grown up in a loving Christian home pretty much devoid of a lot of tragedy and heartache. I have never been angry at God, nor have I not trusted Him. So the book did not really help me in that regard, but there are lots of folks it has helped.

However, like I stated previously there are other areas where the book greatly encouraged me. I just read a devotion by David Wilkerson today called "God Thinks about You." This is pretty close to God's favorite phrase in "The Shack"-- "I'm especially fond of you."

Many people including Christians cannot accept that statement.

User avatar
jasonmodar
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: The Shack

Post by jasonmodar » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:08 pm

dwight92070 wrote:It is so sad that his parents were in New Guinea to bring the gospel to the native people and yet they forgot their first mission field - their own children. He even said that his parents and the other missionaries believed that they had to 'sacrifice" their children for the sake of bringing the gospel to the natives of New Guinea. Those children can so easily see God as the one who doesn't allow them to be the top priority for their parents. Then, to make things even worse, to be sexually abused by the other missionary kids and to have a father that is very angry - what a tragedy!
I'm about 6 weeks away from being a parent for the first time. I work for a non profit Christian ministry, head up the youth group at my church, serve on our board, and preach several times a year on Sundays. This testimony was a very timely reminder for me in regards to the amazing gift I am about to receive- my daughter. God forbid I ever sacrifice her like Young was sacrificed.

Thanks so much for sharing this.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:40 pm

I am grieved to say that to a certain degree, I made the same mistake as those missionaries. We have 5 kids, ages 22 to 43, and we never abused them physically or sexually, but I probably did verbally, because I had a lot of anger. Yet the whole time, we were faithful in going to church, and were quite involved in church activities. But I did not treat them with respect, especially when they misbehaved in any way. I have come to realize that I should have given them the same respect that I gave to adults, especially when correcting them or disciplining them. We spanked way too much and put them in time-out way too much. Much of their "wrong-doing" was them just acting like normal kids and did not deserve punishment and especially not my anger.

Thank God I have been able to ask forgiveness from each of them, and they have graciously forgiven me, but I know that some emotional scars remain. May God bring healing both in those scars, but also in our current relationship with them.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: The Shack

Post by Si » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:34 pm

dwight92070 wrote: Even if I had heard ALL of these men's opinion about "The Shack" before ever reading the book, I still believe it would be fair and accurate. Why? Because I trust them. They have earned a good reputation. I do not trust William Young and IMO, he has not earned a good reputation. Even now, it appears to me that money is part of his motivation. I could be wrong, but he must have made gazillions on the books and now, the movie.
Several of the men you listed are themselves quite wealthy and have sold a lot of books. What reasons do you have for thinking that Mr. Young's heart is different than theirs in respect to motivation?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:29 pm

None really. Like I said, I could be wrong. It's just that Young is relatively new on the seen and presents questionable doctrine, many say heretical doctrine. Also is it just coincidence that many extremist women's libbers like to refer to God as "She" or "Her" and then Young comes along and portrays the Father as a woman and the Spirit as a woman? So, not knowing much about him, except for reading his book, he is suspect, or should I say "guilty" until proven "innocent"?

1. Young hasn't been around (or well-known) as long as the others I mentioned.
2. His doctrine is questionable, possibly heretical.
3. His twisted portrayal of the members of the Trinity.

So I guess I do have some reasons. One last thing, which really is part of #2: A God who is all love, not religious, and no judgment is very popular among the masses and that seems to be a general theme in his book. This is obviously true - just look at the record sales for his book. It's very possible that he knew it would be very popular and a big money-maker.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:18 pm

None really. Like I said, I could be wrong. It's just that Young is relatively new on the seen and presents questionable doctrine, many say heretical doctrine. Also is it just coincidence that many extremist women's libbers like to refer to God as "She" or "Her" and then Young comes along and portrays the Father as a woman and the Spirit as a woman? So, not knowing much about him, except for reading his book, he is suspect, or should I say "guilty" until proven "innocent"?

1. Young hasn't been around (or well-known) as long as the others I mentioned.
2. His doctrine is questionable, possibly heretical.
3. His twisted portrayal of the members of the Trinity.

So I guess I do have some reasons. One last thing, which really is part of #2: A God who is all love, not religious, and no judgment is very popular among the masses and that seems to be a general theme in his book. This is obviously true - just look at the record sales for his book. It's very possible that he knew it would be very popular and a big money-maker.
Do you think God is religious? If so, what do you mean?

I don't think Young denies that God will judge, although it is true that he does not believe in eternal torment, but there is nothing heretical about that.

I am also not sure what you mean when you say he gave a twisted portrayal of members of the Trinity. As far as I know no one else has really tried to portray it in a work of fiction and since it was his book he had the right to depict them as he wished. I did not see any glaring issues in how he portrayed them; I know you don't like the fact that he used female figures but as Steve said above he explained why he did this. And let's face it, the Holy Spirit is, well, a spirit so who knows how to portray the HS. The Father is also a spirit, not male or female in actuality. He is simply "I AM THAT I AM" although obviously he chose to use male pronouns when relating to human beings.

The "heresy" word is tossed around far too often and easily. What are you going to say to all the heretics you meet in heaven?

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”