The Narrow Path Ministries

I have some good friends who are reading The Shack and I remembered that there was a thread on here about it, but it looks like it got deleted!

For those who have read the book, what are your thoughts? (again)

It doesn't sound like a book I would choose to read, but I might have to.

I picked up a copy recently at an airport bookshop, because I had heard so much "buzz" about it. I ended up reading it cover-to-cover on the flight. I had expected it to be mediocre, but instead was really blown away by the heart and the theological depth.

I thought it was a good story. In particular, I liked the way the book expressed God's love for humanity.

On the down side, I didn't like the way the book ended. It seemed like the author got tired of writing and said, "They all lived happily ever after, the end."

I found the book deep and theologically rich. Some of the parts of it challenged me to remember that God is not easily fit into a box or systematic theology, regardless of how much one wants that to be true. I also appreciated the author tackling the question of God's goodness when evil exists with a story that hit home with me. I have 3 young kids. It was often when I would need to put the book down for a minute or so as I was overcome with tears.


Hank Hanegraff has commented on the book HERE.

To summarize, his main objections are:

1) The Father bears crucifixion scars
2) He objects to the statement in the book by Jesus that while on earth, He never drew upon His own nature as God to do anything
3) Jesus makes the following statement - "I am not a Christian and I have no desire to make them" - Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, etc. - "Christians.

As for objection 1, it seems to me that Hank fails to recognize an allegorical approach taken in the book. Is the author trying to communicate that God actually has holes in His hands and feet or merely representing the fact that the Father also suffered through the cross? For someone who gets the allegorical and metaphorical language of Revelation, I'm suprised that he can't see this as well.

In objection # 3, there is an underlying question regarding whether what we call in our age "Chrisianity", is actually being Christ-like. Many followers of Christ feel that in our time, the label"Christian" has come to mean something other than a disciple of Christ. This is because many that claim to be a Christian show no Christ-like attitudes or actions in their lives. My guess is that Young is communicating that following Christ isn't converting to a particular label, but rather loving and obeying Jesus, regardless of what you call yourself or are called. In the rest of the book, there isn't any mention of universalism, so I doubt that is what the author is aiming at here.

I'm not sure about #2.

What are your thoughts on Mr. Hanegraff's objections?


Dave

i personally believe objection #2 has no merit, because i agree with the author that Jesus never "used" his own divinity while on earth. I think everything He did was because he was filled by the HS and lived a sinless life.

I agree with you that regarding objection 3, Jesus is simply making the statement that the term "Christian" doesnt mean much (if that is what jesus was implying) - what matters is obedience to a person (i.e. Him).

i dont think God the Father has crucifixion scars; nor do I think he was "emotionally" scarred. I do, however, think it hurt him deeply at the time.

TK

Greg Boyd gives a review
here

TK

I just finished listening to the book on CD ( i recommend listening to this book if you can- i got mine from the library).

I thought it was excellent. i still believe Hank H's protests are without merit.

It really challenged me in various areas- but primarily "How is my RELATIONSHIP with God?" Not "how is my knowledge about him" of "how is my service for him" but how is my relationship with him?

TK

Coincidentally, a caller called TNP a few days ago (or yesterday?) and asked about the commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain. He didn't name this book by title in his question, but he did make reference to it by subject and Steve's discussion did relate to it. If I get around to it, I'll extract that call and post it on audiodoctrine. Basically, the relevance was whether even though the book (which I've not read) conveys truths about God, does it dishonor God to personify Him in that way and ascribe to Him the personalities given in the book, etc.

TK wrote:I thought it was excellent.

It really challenged me in various areas- but primarily "How is my RELATIONSHIP with God?"

TK

Couldn't have said it better myself. And my wife felt the same way.

darinhouston wrote:Coincidentally, a caller called TNP a few days ago (or yesterday?) and asked about the commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain. He didn't name this book by title in his question, but he did make reference to it by subject and Steve's discussion did relate to it. If I get around to it, I'll extract that call and post it on audiodoctrine. Basically, the relevance was whether even though the book (which I've not read) conveys truths about God, does it dishonor God to personify Him in that way and ascribe to Him the personalities given in the book, etc.

I've uploaded two clips from the show -- the first was Steve responding to a letter about taking the Lord's name in vain. The second was a followup caller who presumably referenced the Shack (not by name) in this context.

They can be found at http://audiodoctrine.com and are in the Kingdom Law section named Taking Lord's Name in Vain.

Direct links here:
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/0810 ... name_1.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/0810 ... name_2.mp3