Book Review, "The Shack"

[21centpilgrim]

Matt,

Thanks for your response. I will try to address some of those points. One of the co-authors of The Shack admitted this -
"While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father’s love that has to be forced on the biblical text."

Here is the article from the LA Times on the million dollar law suit between Young his two christian friends that co-edited it and the book publisher,that is currently underway about http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13 ... k-20100713

When I asked Young in person why Mack's supernatural encounter with God in The Shack seemed so opposite of any of the supernatural encounters between man and God in the bible. He told me that the themes of falling down before God's presence, being struck with fear, seeing God's awesome mercy in light of their sin, and just willing to serve God in whatever way because of His awesomeness, was just how God was in the OT and Jesus showed us how God really is. Real danger of Marcion's heresy.

If , in Paul Young's mind, God doesn't punish people for their sin, then of course the Father didn't forsake Christ on the cross (another thing alleged in The Shack), of course you can reject penal substitution because why would God the Father punish Christ for sin if He doesn't punish people? And UR is just the natural outworking of this kind of theology.
While the bible does teach that men rap what they sow and sin has consequences, that is not negate God's active personal present and future judgment of people's sin. How can we be so calmly going along with a re-editing of God's nature?!? God's rebuke is still true today and perhaps even more so when He rebukes those bearing His name ( although I know Young doesn't like the term Christian) in Psalm 50- You thought that I was altogether like you.

It is easier to make God in man's image and get the masses to jump on board with a God that doesn't judge people's sin but let divine karma rule, than let God be who He says He is. It is easier to easier to gather a following saying believe and receive instead of repent and believe. It is easier to get people to flock around a message of cheap grace and than costly grace. Bonhoeffer is just as true today as when he penned the following words. - "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church. We are fighting today for costly grace." also- "Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

If Young "struggles with the issue of understanding God's love/grace and holiness/judgment together" then perhaps he shouldn't just pick one ( the one that just happens to be the least offensive) and run with it at the detriment of the other. How is that virtuous or how is it largly correct to speak half truth? Doesn't the devil speak half truth? Isn't that how the enemy deceives? An easy verse to embrace regarding this is Psalm 25:14 The friendship of the LORD is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant.
I do agree that it is easier to turn away from the dangers of this book and focus on what is edifying, however that is not what God calls us to all of the times, especially regarding matters dealing with the nature and character of God.

[mattrose]

Paidion... I actually agree completely with your last post

21centpilgrim.... Most of your post is concerned with the theology and personality of the author of The Shack. Not only am I at a disadvantage in having never met the man, but such things also don't concern me very much. I know the book as a fictional text. I read the book twice as a fictional text. I found plenty in there edifying, plenty controversial, plenty uncomfortable (and quite possibly wrong), etc. This should not be surprising.

I think where you and I may disagree is that you seem to be analyzing the book as if it is a systematic theology text-book. If it were intending to be such, my 'theological critique' would, I'm sure, be much more aggressive. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's a fictional novel. I consider it to be 'worthwhile' in the sense that it provokes conversation (like the one we are having now).

I'm not trying to say the questionable doctrine within the book is unimportant. I'm simply saying that an author is allowed to write whatever he wants. I think Young has written a good book in the sense that it depicts a common understanding of God in our culture that, even if wrong in some ways, should and has caused us to look at some important issues in a fresh way.

[21centpilgrim]

Matt,

When I read The Shack, I realized that I was reading fiction and not systematic theology. The level of concern that I have is warranted, because people are not walking away with a fictional experience but profound and altering experiences. If you read a handful of personal reviews you can easily see that people have changed their whole concept of God after reading the book, their beliefs on the trinity, a new understanding of who God is ect. They are having theological encounters and not fictional ones. The Davinci Code was fiction but it has ruined some peoples faith, that just shows that fictional writings can have devastating fruit.
I do agree that the book has created opportunities for conversation and engaging people about God.
The Lord bless you.

[mattrose]

While I don't doubt the possibility that some people may have come to some questionable theological conclusions by reading the book, I can only speak for myself and, to some extent, my Sunday School class. I have a SS class of about 25 people. We were studying through Job. Near the end of the series, someone asked about the book "The Shack". I asked for a show of hands as to how many people had read it and more than half the class raised their hand. I decided it'd be worth discussing the book at the end of the Job series.

When we talked about The Shack, every comment was simply that they found it helpful to the grieving process. They emphasized that it was a good reminder that God is actually working through the problem of pain, with us, and that there is hope in the midst of bad circumstances. Even when I raised the issue of the questionable portrayal of the Trinity, the majority of the class said they didn't even think about the Trinity 'doctrine' when they were reading The Shack. They weren't really thinking about 'doctrine' at all. The only 'move' doctrinally, that was made was a move towards viewing God is 'for us' and not 'against us' which is, frankly, true.

So I'm not just trying to be argumentative. Nor am I trying to defend the book as a masterpiece of theology. I'm just saying I read it and found it to be worth reading. I found it edifying and a good tool for conversation. My Sunday School class found it helpful and they don't seem to have suffered some sort of doctrinal turmoil due to reading it. It was easy enough to talk through the 2 or 3 issues that I found questionable and to remind everyone that it's fiction.

The issue is not so much The Shack or The Da Vinci Code. It's people having a solid enough foundation to read a book of fiction (or supposed non-fiction!) without having their beliefs come to chaos.

[21centpilgrim]

Matt,

I am glad to hear that your Sunday school class was encouraged that God is with us in walking through very hard times of life, this is indeed true and I have never thought that everything in The Shack on every page was heresy. I told Paul Young when I met him that I did not think he was a secret Hindu.

However I do think it is important to see how deception works. It does so in gradual degrees and in half truths and I believe The Shack has both blatant and subtle half truths and an agenda behind it, as I believe more so now after speaking with the author in person, more so than when I read the book after a deacon wanted to take a number of people from our church through it and said it was perhaps the best book he has read after the Bible.

I do think that a majority of Christians are not very biblicaly literate, so the pastoral need to pay heed to a book that has sold 12million copies, that deals with the nature and character of God is within warrant. Let us keep the love of the truth central.

grace and peace, Jeremiah

[mattrose]

Pleasure chatting with you on this subject

[21centpilgrim]

Likewise. And I totally agree with Paidion too.