Blasphemy of "The Shack"

Many have commented on the dangerous nature of "The Shack" in this forum. Below is copy of an email sent by promoters of that book, encouraging readers to a "theological" course on the book and its chapters.

Quote:
------------------------------------------
Hi everyone!

I wanted to announce the online Fall class (from Sept-Dec 2009) at Trinitarian Online Theological School (http://www.covenant-love.org/tots/):

A Journey through "The Shack" - In this class, we go through each chapter of the book in detail, and also study all the great themes of the book. If you wanted a more thorough reading of the book, or wanted to study the theological themes of the book in greater detail, then this is the course for you! Many people on the forum have taken the course and told me how much it has helped them in their walk with Papa.

I have had several hundred people go through this course, and always tell me how it helped them understand more of the book and its theological themes.

This class starts up on Sept 28, 2009. There are small fees for each class to cover all materials (text, audio, video) that you need for the course.

There is no set "meeting time". You can login and participate as you have time. Also, there are no heavy time obligations. And everything you need is inside this online course.

Regards,
The theshackbook.com Team.

http://theshackbook.com/discuss/index.php

-------------------------------------

I say again that this is pure blasphemy. Presenting fictional book characters as if they were God the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, and then now presenting that book as worthy of study like Holy Scripture is irreverent, demeaning, and desecrating the name of our Almighty God.

I pray that all believers will speak up and denounce this book. Too many are blinded and have embraced this book as "of God".

In Christ's Love,
Leo

The Shack is a sickening book! Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIBy0Bkk1ks It clearly shows that William Young is a universalist.

That's the problem with this generation. Everything is based upon experience, subjectivesness, and emotional response without any regard for truth in any capacity.

re: "presenting that book as worthy of study like Holy Scripture is irreverent, demeaning, and desecrating the name of our Almighty God.

I pray that all believers will speak up and denounce this book. Too many are blinded and have embraced this book as "of God".'

I must agree that if someone were to present their book as worthy of study, like Scripture, that it would at least raise alarms in my mind. However, I suppose we differ in terms of what is meant in the course description. I looked up the course reference and discovered the following:

Course Objective:
This class will look at the book "The Shack" by William P. Young to examine literary concepts such as allegory and metaphor, along with the central themes of God's love, the Trinity, and the living of the Christian life. We will examine parallels with the Christian faith demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God. Finally, some of the controversies surrounding the book will be discussed and dealt with. This is a 12 week course, starting on September 28, 2009.

To me this says that the course will study the precepts and themes of that which is illustrated by the book. That is quite different than studying the book to see what it says. They are suggesting that they will be teaching from Scripture that which is "demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God." I see no problem or reason to be alarmed.
As for the book itself and its worth, I for one recognize that it is not a theological treatise but an allegory. As such one views it differently than a textbook on theology. It is a story that illustrates the tender heart of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a story of healing and forgiveness where neither was thought possible.
Even though I approached the book with the same negative attitude expressed here in this post, I was taken by the story from the very beginning, thrilled by the truths it presented and in the manner that they were told. By the end of the book I concluded that the author had done a magnificent job of story writing and was to be applauded for his imaginative style.
I do not usually have much use for works of fiction but there are the few I would recommend including the works of John Bunyan and Charles Sheldon. I would eagerly add The Shack by William P Young to my list of recommended reading.
To DeepThinker, your sister-in-law says that she loved it, I did too and desire actually to reread it but for now I have given it to my sister-in-law in the hopes that she will see and come to understand the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit too. She is in much need of the same sort of healing as Mack, the central figure of the book.
I know that in this post my recommendation of The Shack will be challenged but I stand by it as a wonderful read and I am saddened when I hear the criticisms of those that can't see the book for what it is. It was written for the author's children, not for publication, but even soI find it most appealing and worthy of a read. Worse yet are the criticisms of those that have yet to read it and argue without firsthand knowledge, not suggesting that those here have yet to read it but so often I find that the fiercest arguments against it come from those who get their information secondhand.

Dear Cambridge,

Thank you for your candid response concerning your take on "The Shack". You said...

As for the book itself and its worth, [b]I for one recognize that it is not a theological treatise but an allegory[/b]. As such one views it differently than a textbook on theology. It is a story that illustrates the tender heart of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a story of healing and forgiveness where neither was thought possible.

Course Objective: This class will look at the book "The Shack" by William P. Young to [b]examine literary concepts[/b] such as allegory and metaphor, along with the central themes of God's love, the Trinity, and the living of the Christian life. We will examine parallels with the Christian faith demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God. Finally, some of the controversies surrounding the book will be discussed and dealt with. This is a 12 week course, starting on September 28, 2009.

I quote from the original email:

A Journey through "The Shack" - In this class, we go through each chapter of the book in detail, and also study all the great themes of the book. If you wanted a more thorough reading of the book, or wanted to study the theological themes of the book in greater detail, then this is the course for you! [b]Many people on the forum have taken the course and told me how much it has helped them in their walk with Papa.[/b]

There are many fictional or theological books written by men that have sought to help others in their understanding of God. How does "The Shack" differ from other accepted Christian literature? None of the others had the temerity to actually identify any of their fictional characters as God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They did not because they knew it was folly to try and capture the character of almighty and eternal God in a mere work of fiction (such a project is bound to fall short). The author of "The Shack" has no such fear of God. In fact, he actively promotes his fictional character as God.[/b]

[b]Do not be misled by their claims of faithfulness to scripture. There was a reason why God chose to make himself known to men as Jesus Christ, a Jewish male. His race, his gender, even his very words have a divine connection to prophecies in the Old Testament. God the Father himself is not a man or a woman. He is unseen, without definite form, but in his holy presence mountains tremble. However, it is clear in the Bible that God Almighty desires to be known as one of masculine gender (God the Father). Even Jesus refers to Him in this way. The Holy Spirit is to be known by us as an unseen yet powerful presence in our lives. This is how God revealed himself to us in the Bible. "The Shack" frivolously disregards much of scripture and presents an incarnation of the Holy Trinity that smacks of the same modern-day humanist philosophy that has slowly eroded the kingdom of God on earth today.[/b]

There are many other inconsistencies with scripture imbeded in "The Shack". To hear about some of these, please click here: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCl3NPrhrgE&feature=related]about The Shack[/url]

I see "The Shack" as one of the most vile acts of blasphemy I have ever heard of. It is very popular and the world has embraced it. I grieve for those who will be led down the wrong path by it.

To paraphrase you, Cambridge: [b]"I am saddened by those who cannot see the book for what it is." It is pure blasphemy.[/b]

In Christ's Love,
Leo

Leo:
you said, "They did not because they knew it was folly to try and capture the character of almighty and eternal God in a mere work of fiction (such a project is bound to fall short). The author of "The Shack" has no such fear of God. In fact, he actively promotes his fictional character as God.

Do not be misled by their claims of faithfulness to scripture."

You present a much more intimate knowledge of the inner workings of William P Young as well as the other writers of fiction when you say that they dared not write of such things because they knew it would be folly. I have no such knowledge of their motives and can not speak to theirs or to Mr Young's motive.
I agree that such a project will always fall short. It must. But that does not mean that we refrain from trying in our best to illustrate as well as possible truth. Whenever we try to illustrate the truth of the Trinity from our limited understanding and expression we will always fall short. It must. The simile can only be taken so far and no farther. When we try to push the analogy too far we will of course fall short. Again, it must. It is like this, but not actually this. That's all that a simile, parable, or allegory is, a means of illustrating a truth that will inevitably fall short of the truth.

I suppose that we must agree to disagree. That's not too uncommon in a world of this size. Whatever one might support or promote there will always be the other side of the coin. I just don't see things concerning The Shack in the same way that you do. I'm OK with that. In fact, I expect that others will disagree with myself from time to time.
I have found the positive side of The Shack where you have found the negative. However, this much I know, God was able to speak through a donkey, sometimes He even speaks through people including myself though I have to wonder how at times, but I'm just as sure that He can speak to people through The Shack as well.
The Shack is not perfect. The author wrote in the dedication, "This story was written for my children." Therefore it must be presented in a much simpler manner in order that it be understood by them. Of course it does not attempt to reach a level that would withstand the scrutiny of a much more learned individual. But in my opinion it does that well enough to be a treat for adults too, even learned ones. Even Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology gave it the proverbial thumbs up. Even so, whether he liked it or not, whether anyone likes it or not affects me not because I found much to be thankful for in it myself.

Dear Cambridge,

Since you fail to see how blatantly "The Shack" has gone against scripture, then we must agree to disagree. I pray that others who read this thread will see what you cannot.

You said...

[b]However, this much I know, God was able to speak through a donkey, sometimes He even speaks through people including myself though I have to wonder how at times...[/b]

[b]But, whichever way God chooses to speak to us, we can be sure that his message will never contradict the Bible. "The Shack" blatantly contradicts scripture. The author calls it "artistic license". When "artistic license" is applied to the very Word of God, it is called heresy. When "artistic license" is applied to the very character of God, it is called blasphemy. "The Shack" does both. "The Shack" is not of God.[/b]

In Christ's Love,
Leo

Leo_Grace wrote:

[b]But, whichever way God chooses to speak to us, we can be sure that his message will never contradict the Bible. "The Shack" blatantly contradicts scripture. The author calls it "artistic license". When "artistic license" is applied to the very Word of God, it is called heresy. When "artistic license" is applied to the very character of God, it is called blasphemy. "The Shack" does both. "The Shack" is not of God.[/b]

Well, well said brother.

[i]Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I'm pasting an article below that points out a few instances of heresy in the "The Shack". The author has strong feelings about this book, so I apologize if some become uncomfortable with the author's language, but the content of his article is well worth the read.

The book is becoming so popular that I fear many will be led astray. Please warn others of the dangers of this book.[/i]
----------------------------------

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Shack-Heresy At Its Finest

Below is a reprint of a book review I did of The Shack a few months ago. I am reposting here today because I've noticed several folks finding my blog by a Google search using the search terms "Review of the Shack". If this review causes one person to decide NOT to read the book, I will feel that I have done my job.

One time, while watching an NFL preview show on HBO, I saw a comedian named Wanda Sykes do a short monologue on one of the games for the upcoming weekend. She said, “I have never been to Cincinnati, and I don’t ever plan on going, so I can say this with complete boldness—the Bengal’s stink”. I suppose that I would have to say the same thing about the pile of tripe that is The Shack. I am never going to meet the author and I am never going to read the book. However, I feel totally comfortable saying that I regret calling The Shack garbage in my previous post where I reprinted a review of the book. That was not the right thing to call it. I was wrong to call it that.

Calling it garbage was being far too generous. If I have garbage in my house, I can wait until the next day or so to take it to the dump (we have no city trash collection service, go fig). If my children walked into the room where we keep the trash till we’re ready to take it to the dump I’d be like “Come on, now. Get out of there.” If I found a copy of The Shack in my home I would probably burn the place down. If my children got their hands on the wretched thing I’d get industrial strength hand cleaner to wash their hands with. You know, the kind mechanics use after they’ve worked in grease. I mean, the things this man writes in this book go so far beyond heresy that it’s hard to believe that he actually wrote them. I’m not saying he’s not a Christian, or that he’s a bad husband or father. Heck, as far as I know he may be the Michael Jordan of the bar-b-que grill and give 10 hours a day volunteering at the local charity. But his book makes the Purpose Drivel Life (that was not a misspelling, I meant for it to look like that) look like Matthew Henry’s Commentary. I am going to take just a few quotes from the book and give page numbers. If you can in good conscience read the book after you see what’s in it, well, just make sure you don’t leave your copy on my doorstep when you’re done. I’d rather not have to take a jackhammer to my front porch because it had been polluted with that filth.

On page 120, the character who is written to represent God, a woman called Papa, says “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Huh? Do what? God doesn’t need to punish people for their sin? Ok, I must really need new glasses because the Bible I read says in Psalm 1 that the wicked will not be able to stand in the judgment of Almighty God but instead will be blown around like chaff. In Matthew 7, Jesus says that some people who thought they were all religious will be told to depart from Him because He never knew them. Time and time again He mentions that those folks will be in eternal punishment “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. The book of Revelation spells it out even clearer. In chapter 20 verse 15, it says anyone who is not found with their names written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire. This fire, it says in that chapter, brings torment forever and ever. While it is true that God provided the perfect cure for sin on Calvary in the vicarious substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also true that God punishes sin. Therefore, what is written in The Shack contradicts clear biblical teaching. Regardless of any good anyone might find in there, reading the book is not worth it. I mean, who would look in a pile of cow manure to find a diamond. Boy, if I was going to do that, it would have to be a really big diamond.

Oh, but wait—there’s more. On page 182, the character meant to represent Jesus says “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions”. Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'”. Jesus then goes on to say “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu (the character who plays the Holy Spirit).” Here is the problem with these two quotes. The first might not be something that would make you go “Eek” upon first reading. I believe God can save anyone anywhere. You don’t have to be a part of the right group to be saved. Could God save a Mormon? No doubt if that Mormon confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). I mean, they’d need to get out of their LDS cult and all because you can’t be a Christian and stay there. That’s a rabbit trail for another sunny day. However, what the character doesn’t do is say that there is only one way to heaven. In fact, the next quote from the character playing Jesus says “I am the BEST way any human can relate” (emphasis mine) to God. “Best” isn’t exclusive folks. When I’m at work, I have quite a bit of control over how I do my work. There are times where, when I have finished an assignment, that my supervisor will review it and say “Let’s do this”. Sometimes I find that what I did was good but their way was better. There may be a way to do the task even better than what my supervisor had suggested and that way might be best. So, if Jesus is the BEST way that suggests by the very way that it was worded that there are other ways that are not as good but would still do the job. Saying Jesus is the BEST way is a far cry from saying He is the ONLY way, which is what the Bible teaches.

Oh, but lest you think I’m finished, check out this little nugget from the author. On page 99, the character who is supposed to be God says “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood”. Dear reader, God the Father did not take on flesh and dwell among us. That was God the Son-the Word of God (John 1:14). Nor did the third person of the Trinity take on flesh—I mean, He’s called the Holy Spirit, right? Further, Jesus says in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit. Again, what we see is the clear distinction between the heresy written in The Shack and the truth written in God’s word.

In the end, you and I have to make a choice. Where do we stand? Do we stand with what Scripture plainly teaches or do we allow ourselves to entertain thoughts that obviously contradict scripture. My prayer is that you will decide to fill your mind with things that edify you and build you up as a believer. The garbage that is between the covers of the Shack will do neither.

Posted by Joe Blackmon at 9:35 AM
Labels: Book reviews

bump.

This is happening right now - people need to read this thread.

I toyed with the idea of responding to your post because The Shack has already been discussed on this forum. It grew on me how ungrossly unfair it is to speak on something secondhand. KrispyKritter admits that he knows lots of people that have read it and thoroughly enjoyed it but he has no time for this "useless piece of literary junk." To Krispy I would suggest that people's perspectives have been opened up to whom God truly is by reading it. First and foremost we are to be fed by The Word and prayer but I believe that you will find that those that make time to read (though fiction is not at the top of my list as generally it has little meat) are the better for it.
I love Tozer's quote from The Pursuit of God, "Come near to the holy men and women of the past and you will soon feel the heat of their desire after God. They mourned for Him,they prayed and wrestled and sought for Him day and night, in season and out, and when they had found Him the finding was all the sweeter for the long seeking."

John Wesley wrote, "to one John Premboth on August 17, 1760. It's as pertinent today as it was 249 years ago!

"What has exceedingly hurt you in time past, nay, and I fear to this day, is want of reading. I scarce ever knew a preacher read so little. And perhaps, by neglecting it, you have lost the taste for it. Hence your talent in preaching does not increase. It is just the same as it was seven years ago. It is lively, but not deep; there is little variety, there is no compass of thought. Reading only can supply this, with meditation and daily prayer. You wrong yourself greatly by omitting this. You can never be a deep preacher without it, any more than a thorough Christian. O begin! Fix some part of every day for private exercises. You may acquire the taste which you have not: what is tedious at first, will afterwards be pleasant. Whether you like it or no, read and pray daily. It is for your life; there is no other way; else you will be a trifler all your days, and a petty, superficial preacher. Do justice to your own soul; give it time and means to grow. Do not starve yourself any longer. Take up your cross and be a Christian altogether. Then will all children of God rejoice (not grieve) over you in particular."

(http://informedevangelist.blogspot.com/2009/08/john-wesley-on-reading.html)

There is value in reading outside of the Bible because we can learn what God has revealed to an individual through His Word and experience though experience must always be judged by The Word. What han individual learns in a lifetime can be repeated in for our edification in a hundred pages or so. I find that the most encouraging books for me are biographies and stories of revival. If both topics are combined, as they often are, I am usually unable to put it down until I have read it through. I find that I am greatly encouraged to follow in their footsteps.
As for The Shack, I am actually reading it again thanks to this discussion. I find that the author has an insight into the heart of God that not only matches my theology but my heart as well. I am encouraged by it. Where I get discouraged is where others whom have not read this book would repeat untruths concerning it. Is the book perfect? Emphatically not, but its a storybook that was written for the author's children not as a text of theology. Having said that I find that the author does very well portraying the very truths of The Word concerning God's character.
Before I read it the first time I too thought that I would never waste the time to read it because of the "blasphemies" within it. I believe the Lord led me to reconsider that presumption and so I thought that I would read it in order to see if it were worthwhile that an unbeliever might read it and perhaps be encouraged to seek God. I was thinking especially of my wife but so far she has not read it. However, circumstances lead me into a very interesting conversation with a near relative that lost their partner through tragic circumstances. After a lengthy discussion about God and their former partner I told her that she should read this book. She got quite excited because the counselling group of which she participates has encouraged her many times to read the same book. The book is now in her hands. It was one of those moments that you recognize that God is in it and as it usually happens it works out differently than the plan that I had (that my wife was to read it).
All this to say that I thoroughly enjoyed The Shack and am enjoying it again.
P.S. I have 2 copies, one to lend and one for me.
As to the teaching of The Shack as quoted from Joe Blackmon I will refer you to a following post as this one is too long already.

Leo_Grace

Sorry to disgree with you concerning The Shack but I agree withg those that find The Shack to be worthwhile of being read. I don't see in it the same dangers that you have found.
Forgive me for being bold in asking but I must, Have you read The Shack or are you basing your conclusions on what others have said? If you have read the book and don't agree with it, it would be a far better argument than not having read it while being forcefully against it.

Marilynne Robinson, in The Death of Adam, is quoted , "We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for extenuation. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgment as to invalidate evidence that does not confirm us in it. Nothing that deserves to be called truth could ever be arrived at by such means." p. 67 The Shack

We need to be consciously aware of why we believe what we believe in order that truth be known and kept. I realized a number of years ago that I believed in the Trinity, that Jesus is God, that God is good and a host of other things but I didn't know why I believed these things. It was a huge struggle in my life because I had been exposed to what I know now to be obvious heresies put forth by those who took misused & even rewrote Scripture. The struggle taught me to evaluate my reason for believing something. I would not allow another person to tell me what was truth because frankly both sides had their "proofs". I had to find out for myself and allow God to lead me into truth as He promises to. I find the lesson learned has served me well over the years.

Concerning the article you quoted by Joe Blackmon. I realize that these are his words, not yours, though you seem to find agreement with them.

Joe suggests that the author believes that "God doesn’t need to punish people for their sin?" The quote that he took is out of its context. God was speaking to Mack because Mack voiced his feelings that God didn't fit his own conception of an angry God. Deep down Mack could only explain that his daughter was taken from him in cruel circumstance because God was always venting anger toward the human race. God was showing Mack that He loves everyone because quite simply that's His nature to love everyone, even the bad ones.
The quote about sin being its own punishment and God's desire to cure it not punish it refers to, I believe, the here and now. Mack had asked, "Honestly, don't You enjoy punishing those who disappoint You?" Later, on page 120, Goid leans over to Mack and says, "You raise some important questions and we'll get around to them, I promise." The purpose of this exchange seems to be to express God's love in order to illustrate that He is not as so many would have, the God of the Old Testament that is angry. We know that the God of the Old Testament is one and the same but many still see Him as two different "people." When we sin God does not send the proverbial lightening bolt from heaven to wipe us out as many fear but He loves us and weeps for us to return to Him. That's the purpose of this exchange.

Joe says, Jesus then goes on to say “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu (the character who plays the Holy Spirit).”
I am sorry but that simply is not in the book that I can find and I looked ahead a couple of chapters. I looked and cannot find such a statement. Please advise me as to where I might look to find it.

Joe goes on to page 99 to suggest that the author means that God took on flesh as did Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If we took the time to ask the author what he meant instead of showing what we believe that he meant I'm sure that we would find his theology to be as orthodox as yours and mine. His expression here more likely is used to illustrate the oneness and unity of God. Its not to suggest that as Jesus walked in the flesh while on this earth that there was no God in heaven or no Holy Spirit. In the sense that God is one and that He refers to Himself as We (see Genesis 1:26) so whenever He does anything the Trinity is actively involved.
The Trinity is a difficult concept to understand or to illustrate. The illustration will never fully capture the truth and our need is to be careful in how far we take an illustration lest it be stretched too far and become heretical.

My main concern here in this post is that we as individuals would discern for ourselves what is true concerning The Shack. Hopefully we would express the same discernment in searching out the truth as found in The Word. We are as believers all called to judge what is truth.

Leo_Grace - if you have not read The Shack, I encourage you to read it in order to understand what it really says. If you have read it and disagree with me and others on this forum that it is a good book then we too must agree to disagree.

Blessings, trxx

I have read "The Shack" from front to back. It is to be avoided at all cost. This book is nothing but blashemy and heresy written from the pits of Hell itself.

The Jehovahs Witness and Mormons have a pretty "neat" story as well, but there is NO WAY that I would tell ANYONE, believer or not, to read or listen to their garbage. Again, from the pits of Hell.

trxx wrote:

Having said that I find that the author does very well portraying the very truths of The Word concerning God's character.

My friend... If this is what you believe about this book and what this author says, then I find it very hard to believe that you truly understand "the very truths of The Word concerning God's character."

trxx wrote:

I find that the author has an insight into the heart of God that not only matches my theology but my heart as well.

trxx... The author of this book makes Father God a female, and the Holy Spirit has an alter ego. In essense, [u]a 4th God head instead of the trinity God head.[/u] This is YOUR theology???

In saying this, I question how anyone can support such garbage as theologically correct, unless they know not whom they worship...

[u][b]Timothy 4:2-4 (NKJV)[/b][/u]

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. [b]For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.[/b]

Dear trxx,

First let me thank you for the gentle and gracious way that you have worded your disagreement with my view of "The Shack".

Let me answer by relating a very short story:

[i]Two cousins, city kid and a farm boy, were playfully exploring in a meadow one day when they came upon a small mound of dirt on the ground. "What is that?" asked the city kid. "Don't touch that!" exclaimed the farm boy, "That's cow dung." "Are you sure?" said the city kid, "How can you be so sure when we're standing 10 feet away from it? You might be wrong." The city kid refused to believe his cousin and decided to investigate further. He poked his fingers into the pile, scooped up some of the dirt, brought it to his face, then he tasted it and smelled it. "Ugh! Yuk!" cried the city kid, "It is dung!"[/i]

In response to your question on whether I have read "The Shack", I can proudly say I have not, and like KrispyKrittr, I don't intend to. We are like the farm boy - we know what it is, we know we won't like it, we know it won't be good for us, and tasting it is unnecessary.

Let me ask you in turn: Have you read the Bible?

Dt 32:5-6 They have acted corruptly toward him; to their shame they are no longer his children, but a warped and crooked generation. [b]Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?[/b]

Mt 11:27 [color=CC3300]“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."[/color]

In both the OT and NT, God makes himself known to us as a Father - not a mother, not a sister, but a Father. "The Shack" wants us to think otherwise.

To shorten this post, let me quote from my previous posts:

[b]Do not be misled by their claims of faithfulness to scripture. There was a reason why God chose to make himself known to men as Jesus Christ, a Jewish male. His race, his gender, even his very words have a divine connection to prophecies in the Old Testament. God the Father himself is not a man or a woman. He is unseen, without definite form, but in his holy presence mountains tremble. However, it is clear in the Bible that God Almighty desires to be known as one of masculine gender (God the Father). Even Jesus refers to Him in this way. The Holy Spirit is to be known by us as an unseen yet powerful presence in our lives. This is how God revealed himself to us in the Bible. "The Shack" frivolously disregards much of scripture and presents an incarnation of the Holy Trinity that smacks of the same modern-day humanist philosophy that has slowly eroded the kingdom of God on earth today.[/b]

Also:

[b]I do agree with you that God can speak to us in many ways. I would even go farther and say that God can and will speak to us even today. This is clear in the bible.

But, whichever way God chooses to speak to us, we can be sure that his message will never contradict the Bible. "The Shack" blatantly contradicts scripture. The author calls it "artistic license". When "artistic license" is applied to the very Word of God, it is called heresy. When "artistic license" is applied to the very character of God, it is called blasphemy. "The Shack" does both. "The Shack" is not of God.[/b]

You said:

As for The Shack, I am actually reading it again thanks to this discussion. I find that the author has an insight into the heart of God that not only matches my theology but my heart as well.

In Christ's Love,
Leo

Sincerity is not a test of truth, nor is emotions. The Word of God is our unit of measure, our canon. Nevermind the argument that one has to read, watch, listen to a particular item before they can speak on it, that is foolishness. God has gifted persons in the chruch that are teachers, whose ministries and lives have borne much fruit, and it is not wrong to trust their judgement on a topic such as this. It seems to me that to reconcile the god of the Shack with the bible, you would have to throw out the Old Testament and most of the New as well.

I want to be brief and promise not to respond to any more posts. In The Shack you suggest that God is portrayed as a mother, a woman figure at any rate. Are you aware of the ending where this representation is corrected to that which Mack always, as do most others, supposed, that of an aged fatherly firgure? Perhaps Miccah too is unaware or simply forgot.
As for those who would suggest my theology should be questioned I would only say that you know me not nor do you know my training or the depth of my search for truth. I am as orthodox as they come with a fire in my heart for Him and for truth. Perhaps that is part of the reason that I cannot be quiet when I come upon any unfair representation of truth.
But this I know, I cannot speak to the truth or theology of anything or anyone without having first studied that which is in question.
If you have not read it and do not intend to then so be it. You are still my brother or sister. You simply are not in my mind in a position to report on something you do not have firsthand knowledge.
We think it foolish that the world should think of God as being an angry God who watches over the world so that He might find pleasure in making our lives difficult or to destroy us. With an understanding of the truth, having discovered it for ourselves through extensive study we yearn to correct the world of their wrongful (would I say heretical) view. This is in my mind what the author of The Shack has attempted to do.
But you would have to read it to see this.
To those who have read the book and still find it offensive and I know of one such, then I say I disagree, with reason, and we will always disagree but I would not question ones faith because they do not see a work of fiction in the same way that I do. That would be preposterous. I have seen one vantage point where the other sees another. Kind of like the old Calvinist/Arminian debate but I wouldn't want to open that can of worms here as it causes enough mudslinging on this site as it is.
Simply put, please be aware that not all disciples of Jesus see The Shack in the same way thay you do. Some have actually thoroughly enjoyed it and I am simply one of those. And I am your brother in Christ Jesus.

Blessings, trxx

Dear trxx,

Thank you for your response, and I hope that you will continue to respond. If we are both true believers, then the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truth.

You discount my posts for the reason that I have not read the book "The Shack". You said:

If you have not read it and do not intend to then so be it. You are still my brother or sister. [b]You simply are not in my mind in a position to report on something you do not have firsthand knowledge[/b].

On the basis of God's Word, which I have prayerfully read, I condemn the sins of murder and adultery. Are you saying it's not valid since I have not partaken of murder and adultery (no first-hand knowledge)?

I have spoken against "The Shack" as heresy and blasphemy because I know, even without reading the book, that it portrays God the Father in ways that are contrary to what He has given us in Scripture. Must I endure the cesspool that the author calls "artistic license" in the book to make my accusation valid? I think not.

[i]Ex 20:7 “[b]You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God[/b], for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

2Ch 32:19 "[b]They spoke about the God of Jerusalem as they did about the gods of the other peoples of the world —the work of men’s hands."[/b][/i]

The third commandment forbids the misuse of God's name. I believe using God's name and character in what is admittedly a mere work of fiction violates this command. The author of "The Shack" has spoken about God like "the gods of other peoples of the world". He freely admits that he used "artistic license" in his fictional reincarnation of the Trinity, which is very different from the truth in the Bible. This is blasphemy and heresy rolled into one.

You say:

With an understanding of the truth, having discovered it for ourselves through extensive study we yearn to correct the world of their wrongful (would I say heretical) view.

[i]2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/i]

I don't think you can honestly answer "yes" to any of those questions.

May God, through the Holy Spirit, enlighten all who may read through this thread.

In Christ's Love,
Leo

Hello,

My comments on this thread are expressed below by the Apostle Paul, in his 2nd letter to Timothy.

2nd Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 [b]And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.[/b]

Jesus is the Truth & the Light,
white stone

Leo;

Thank you that you do not respond as I see so many responding to posts in this forum. It seems that every time that I visit I consider that it should be the last time as the tone of most posts seem saturated with pride and would only lead to divisiveness. I have been a frequenter for long enough that I have more than enough great sermons to last me a lifetime.
The reason that I am replying is because I found the reference that you quoted by Joe Blackmon. I take it from your earlier post.

Oh, but wait—there’s more. On page 182, the character meant to represent Jesus says “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions”. Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'”. Jesus then goes on to say “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu (the character who plays the Holy Spirit).”

The issue that I had was that I could find nowhere that it said, "Jesus then goes on to say “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu (the character who plays the Holy Spirit).” I looked several chapters ahead but could not find Jesus saying, "I am the best way..." on page 182 or further on as Joe suggested. Well, in rereading The Shack I found where these words are spoken, on page 110. From the context I understand that He is simply saying that if you want to know what the Father is like, or what the Holy Spirit is like, look to Jesus. Nothing heretical in that. The science of hermeneutics would demand that we do not take Scriptures out of its context in order to come to a preconceived conclusion, prooftexting my hypothesis with no regard for context. We see it all the time in the cults and in, dare I say, heresies. I have enough respect for you that you would not allow such to be done with Scripture. I am only asking all to apply the same tools of understanding to a book that seems to illicit more negative response from those who do not have firsthand knowledge of it, not having read it but taking the words of another, and in this case I expect that this author too is unknown to you, and condemning the book without taking the time to see if it is true. I have shown you that this representation is false.

You say that, "I have spoken against "The Shack" as heresy and blasphemy because I know, even without reading the book, that it portrays God the Father in ways that are contrary to what He has given us in Scripture."
My argument is simply this, that I have read the book and find no such heresy, but you, and I would include many others, have not read it, yet make judgments aginst it which I have tried to show as being erroneous. I appreciate your zeal for the Word and for truth but I assure you that it is no greater than my own. I just see your argument as arguing from a weaker stance because you are taking at face value the words of another and those words are not in their greater context. There is a vast difference quoting from page 110 and suggesting that it follows immediately after a conversation on page 182 and that this would prove the author's heretical viewpoint. I will not suggest however that Joe did so knowingly as I have not any firsthand knowledge to his heart. I prrefer to think at this point that he did so erroneously, perhaps from memory.

You are absolutely right to judge all truth by Scripture but you would never condemn a man for murder who you did not have firsthand knowledge that he did so. The Israelites were not allowed to condemn a man either unless there were more than one witness. Hearsay was forbidden as a weapon of justice. Justice could only be meted out on the basis of those (plural) who were eyewitness to the fact.

"You are trying to correct what you believe to be "heretical views" with something other than the Bible. Is the Bible insufficient for this in your view?"

I am not trying to correct any view from another book other than Scripture. I find that The Shack only illustrates the truth of Scripture in a way that many more might understand. I refer of course to unbelievers (though many believers might hold the same incorrect understandings of Goid's character) who though they may not read the Bible if you handed it to them yet they may be encouraged to study the Bible because thay have seen God in a better light than they did before. This is my hope for the close relative that I mentioned earlier.

God looks at the hungry heart for Him and wherever they might be, of whatever background, whether they be now muslim, Jehovah's Witness, reading The Shack, or wherever, He will lead them into truth as far as they desire to go with Him. He will not force anyone into belief or submission. We know that this is not His way.

The Shack has been exposed to many, many unbelievers that I am sure will begin a journey of faith because they have now seen God and suffering in a much different light.

Frankly I do not see the heresy of which posters in this particular forum see. I can not tell you how many times tears form in my eyes because I see the truth in how God is represented where if only the world could see the same truth they too would begin their journey of faith. I know who God is and my desire is that all should come to the same knowledge. If their journey begins from reading The Shack, well, praise the Lord! They too will fall down and cry out with the angels, the living creatures, the seraphim, the cherubim, the archangels, and the elders, indeed the whole of creation, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty.Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
I apologise for going on but I'm told that I am passionate for my faith.

Blessings to you,

trxx

[b]Dear trxx,[/b]

First, please accept my apology for copy/pasting a critique of "The Shack" that seems to have been erroneous in one of its several references to biblical error. I have not read the book, so I didn't know, and I accept your findings as true - I have no reason to doubt you.

I can sense the sincerity in your posts regarding your desire that this work of man "The Shack" will be used by God in a positive way. We know that nothing is impossible with God - even the devil will serve His purpose if God so desires. But that does not mean we should embrace the devil.

It seems you view this book as something akin to an evangelical tract or a book on discipleship, so I can understand your zeal in defending the book. I am praying now, however, that you will also try to see the same book from my viewpoint.

I believe that there are many men used by God to reach out to the lost, and they accomplish this in many ways, including the ministry of Christian literature. [b]However, this book "The Shack" cannot fall into the same category as other Christian literature.[/b]

[b]In other accepted works called Christian literature, you will not find any overt depiction of God the Father, much less the entire Trinity, as a fictional character(s) within the literary work. The main reason for this is obvious in the bible: it is forbidden by the third commandment (Ex 20:7).[/b] Aside from that, any utterance by any of the God-characters in such fictional work can easily be misconstrued by many as the very Word of God. That is why all accepted Christian literature quote directly from Scripture if there is a need for God to "speak" to the reader.

The author of "The Shack" may have meant well in writing this work of fiction, and he may have agonized over the words he placed in the mouths of his God-characters to make these as biblically sound as possible, but in the end we should not avert our eyes and refuse to see what he has produced:

[b]The God-character(s) in "The Shack" is/are NOT God.[/b] They are products of one man's imperfect understanding of the Bible, sprinkled with a very heavy dose of "artistic license". ([i]Note: The author himself used the term "artistic license" in describing how he produced his work. Definition of "Artistic License" - used to denote the [u]distortion or complete ignorance of fact, or the changing of an established fact[/u] that an artist may undertake in the name of art[/i]). [u]Knowingly or unknowingly, the author himself has admitted to the public that he purposely deviated from the truth in this work, for the sake of art[/u].

[b]God the Father[/b] made himself known to us in the Bible as a fearful and terrible [u]masculine[/u] presence whose justice is incorruptible and whose holiness is so pure and uncompromising that only a select few have ever been invited to stand in His presence, much less took at him directly (1Sa 6:20). In fact, many have died for approaching Him unbidden. His majesty and power are such that even the universe bows to his will (Isa 40:25-26). God the Father sits on a throne more glorious and more majestic than human imagination can devise (Rev 4:2-8). He is surrounded by hosts of angels and worthy creatures who sing His praises without end.

[u]God the Father is not a folksy old African woman who lives in a shack open to anyone who wishes to visit; neither is he an "aged fatherly figure"[/u]. He is God and there is no one like Him. He is holy - not accessible except to those who have been reborn by grace, through the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ.

[b]Jesus Christ[/b] is the only incarnation of God in the Bible. He can be approached by all because He became man just like us. It is through Jesus that we are enabled to know the Father (Mt 11:27). His birth, his miracles, his sermons, his sacrifice, his death, his redemption, and his resurrection all occurred more than 2,000 years ago as recorded in the Bible. He now sits at the right hand of the father (Mk 16:19). [u]Jesus Christ is no longer on the Earth, and he will not appear here again until the time of his second coming[/u] (Mk 13:26-27).

[b]The Holy Spirit[/b] is the only member of the Holy Trinity still on Earth, whose ministry is to encourage, empower, guide, and sanctify the believers of Jesus Christ (2Th 2:13). But [u]the Holy Spirit is invisible and unseen, recognized only by believers through his presence in them[/u], not outside of them (Jn 14:16-17).

It is either through ignorance of God's Word, or through pride and disobedience that the author has grossly violated the third commandment, and has committed blasphemy against God by using His name and His character in a work of fiction.

As if this were not enough, he intentionally misrepresented God in the book by consciously deviating from Biblical depictions of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. His representations of God in the book are obvious attempts to ingratiate himself with the general public, probably with an eye at the commercial value, by choosing characters that would warm the hearts of modern-day humanists who stand opposed to Christianity today (i.e. racial and gender neutrality, non-confrontational, egalitarian not hierarchical, etc.).

Can you not see this, trxx? My heart grieves for you if you cannot, or will not.

In Christ's Love,
Leo

My friend Leo

Please allow me to call you friend. Of course I accept your apology though I never for a moment blamed you for the error or thought any less of you for it. I appreciate that you accept what I say as being true. I could not present anything but the truth without my conscience troubling me. I'm sure that it is the same for you.

I hesitated to reply again after the last post which I felt necessary because I had found where Joe had taken his quote from to put together with another as one. Enough said there. I realized today that I am beginning to enjoy this conversation, debate, or argument if you will but not in the context of a heated argument, rather as an enjoyable one where ideas are expounded in a friendly manner. Its refreshing in a world where its too easy to degenerate into an unedifying exchange. I promise to consider you with the highest respect as we discuss this and will do my utmost not to offend you without shying away from the discussion and not to take offense as you present your understanding. We do so, I believe, out of respect for easch other and from our faith that makes us co-heirs with Christ.

Its been some time since I have had the opportunity to have an "intellectual" conversation outside of the usual daily conversations that we partake of. I look forward to being challenged and to challenge as long as we do so with the utmost mutual respect.

Please allow me to challenge some of the remarks that you made.

You said, "I am praying now, however, that you will also try to see the same book from my viewpoint." I would rather that we both sincerely pray that we would both know the truth concerning this matter. Its a subtle difference but I think you'll agree a good one. I don't want to convert anyone to my viewpoint of things because I firstly recognize that I myself am fallible. My desire, and I'm sure yours, is for truth.

You said, "In other accepted works called Christian literature, you will not find any overt depiction of God the Father, much less the entire Trinity, as a fictional character(s) within the literary work. The main reason for this is obvious in the bible: it is forbidden by the third commandment (Ex 20:7)."

I admit that it would be typical to refrain from using the Godhead as a character(s) in works of fiction because of the difficulty in presenting the concept in a way that is understood. How can you present something that is beyond our comprehension? That does not mean that we do not try or that in doing so we break the third commandment, "You shall not take the Lord's name in vain." It is not simpply trying to describe the Godhead that He speaks of that is wrong. It is the heart of the man that determines when the Lord's name is taken in vain. I prefer to call Jesus Christ, "Yeshua Hamashiach" (Jesus the Messiah) simply because of the vain usage of His name that is so prevelant in our society. To me, that is breaking the third commandment, not trying to articulate a difficult concept as best we can. Even so, this is not quite what the third commandment refers to though it is widely accepted as such. We could be a long time discussing the meaning of "taking the Lord's name in vain. The real danger I believe comes from misrepresenting God's character not His "physical attributes" because He does not have any that are recognizable at least in the Person of the Father. How do you describe spirit? But since God Himself took the liberty to describe Himself as our Father, describing for Himself physical attributes then why can we not? From the very beginning we will be misrepresenting Him as He truly is when we do.

I could say that the Godhead is like an apple. Jesus would be the skin because He is the visible part, the Holy Spirit could be the flesh of the apple and the Father would be the core. That would be three distinct parts in one. But then someone would accuse me of making God out to be a fruit which would of course be sheer nonsense to suggest. Better, I admit, to resist going too far in trying to articulate the Trinity yet at the same time we are often called to both Scripturally and philosophically describe the Trinity to unbelievers and others of different beliefs. Its not sin to try.

As to artistic license, may I be so bold, and I'm going to even though I will probably be taken to task for it, that God used artistic license when He spoke of Himself in anthropomorphic terminology. He has no gender that He should be called Father but He asks us to call Him, "Abba, Father" and I appreciate that He allows me too. But that does not make Him to be a man. It only characterizes who He is relationally to us and in a manner that we can comprehend. God has no arms but He asks in Isaiah 59:1, "Is My arm too short?." Does He have hands (Exodus 7:5), or, a face (Numbers 6:24), a mouth (Psalm 33:6), eyes (Psalm 34:15), or wings (Psalm 89:10)? The answer of course is no but He refers to Himself in language that we understand. The problem is that it creates an image in our mind that isn't true - the old white haired gentleman that is often seen in art. Shall we then condemn art as being heretical too? Or do we accept it as a humble attempt to portray God pictorially, with paint instead of words?

You said that the "author himself has admitted to the public that he purposely deviated from the truth in this work." Please show me the quote that I might know of what truth he speaks of.

You go on to say, "Aside from that, any utterance by any of the God-characters in such fictional work can easily be misconstrued by many as the very Word of God. That is why all accepted Christian literature quote directly from Scripture if there is a need for God to "speak" to the reader.

You say that any utterance of the character of God can be easily misconstrued as the very words of God but in speaking thus I fear that you discredit far too many people in one swipe of your pen (keyboard). You need to give readers everywhere more credit than that. If that premise is not faulty enough you go on to build upon it by suggesting "That is why all accepted Christian literature quote directly from Scripture if there is a need for God to "speak" to the reader. Its not a good apologetic practice to present a questionable hypothesis (that the words are likely to be misunderstood as the words of God) as your foundation and then to build upon it and include that this is the very reason that ALL Christian literature uses Scripture when the character of God speaks. I suppose that we must condemn C S Lewis for his Chronicles of Narnia. His works are generally accepted as Christian literature though I admit not by all. Never will please everyone. But I think few if any label him a heretic or blasphemer. Sorry, back to the point at hand. I might go so far as to say that this might be the reason for some Christian literature but I would certainly hesitate to include all. I would understand the fear and trembling with which the authors might have approached the writing of such. Though I would be very careful in my attempt I do not see the need to abstain from trying. I found the conversations represented in the book to be very much in line with whom I know God to be and I add , not proudly or boastful, that I know Him well because in His grace He has revealed Himself to me through Scripture and in experience. No surprise in that because He promised to.

I agree that "God the Father is not a folksy old African woman who lives in a shack open to anyone who wishes to visit." You may not understand that the Father is only characterized in this way (which at first causes difficulty for the character Mack as well) because Mack has great difficulty in his relationship with his own father. As soon as his own relationship with his father is mended God is then shown as the more typical father figure that most of us imagine. But, no, the shack is not open to anyone to visit. This shack is the place where a tragic event took place, which helped to form Mack's erroneous view of God, that claimed someone dear to Mack. It was the place where Mack was invited to by God to bring him to a place of emotional healing and to "correct" his understanding of God.

I have no problem with your descriptions of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. I would add to the description of the Father though. When I read the Old Testament, in fact when I refer to the whole Bible, I refer to it as a romance or love story because it ilustrates the love of God throughout its pages for humanity and all of His creation above all else. Justice will be meted to those who never recognized His authority. I added that lest anyone think that I impose God's love for humanity above His justice. But His desire is that none should perish. Every single page tells the story of His love for mankind and the depths that He has gone to trying to make mankind understand. Even when there was no way, He took it upon Himself to provide a way. While we were yet sinners (in our rebellion toward Him) He died for us. Though we despised Him, forsook Him, mocked Him, spat on Him, scourged Him and crucified Him, yet He still loved us with a perfect love.

"he intentionally misrepresented God in the book by consciously deviating from Biblical depictions of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

I recognize that the Bible actually does not give us much to go on regarding a description of God or the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus is described as rather non-descript. But Jesus is much easier to project graphically because of His humanity. Even so we, for the most part, at least in North America, have taken too much liberty by showing Him as an attractive white male with long flowing straight hair when He was born to a Jewish woman in Israel and most likely looked quite different than most pictures present. We know this but don't consider it heresy.

"His representations of God in the book are obvious attempts to ingratiate himself with the general public, probably with an eye at the commercial value."

Its one thing to speak of what he says but quite another to speak of why he says something. I think that when you wrote this that you forgot that he did not write for the public but for his own children. He never considered himself an author though he did write prolifically it seems for friends and family and for text in web pages. He wrote text, poems, short stories and such. He was encouraged by his wife to write this as a Christmas gift for his children. Others encouraged him to publish it. I looked at an interview with him and can reference this material if you so desire. But you can't say that he wrote it with the public in mind when it was written not for the public but intended only for his children. Therfore there was no consideration for "commercial value."

I thank you for the sincerity of your heart that grieves for me. It would be wrong not to grieve when you believe the things that you do. In the same way I grieve for you because I desire that you might see the things that I see. Two sides of a coin.

I hope that I have not offended you. I don't wish to nitpick at what and how you argue but its always been important to me to present the best and reasonable argument possible within my means. This applies to all things but especially to matters of the faith. My highest authority is of course Scripture. Even where I find what some consider conflicting viewpoints in Scripture, for example, the Calvinist/Arminian debate, I prefer to accept that Scripture teaches both and rather than try to make Scripture conform to my belief I make my theology conform to Scripture. If Scripture reveals both arguments then I accept both arguments as being true. I may not comprehend how that can be yet I believe that there is no contradiction in God only that I cannot fully comprehend how it can be in my finite mind. Its not a copout but I believe the most reasonable conclusion.

Before I write I must first consider whether it is first arguably true and secondly reasonable. I try not to speak before I think even in conversation but I try to weigh my words well. I am not closeminded in most things but open to truth. But there are matters of doctrine that I have sufficiently proven to myself that I am most definitely closeminded. Of these things I am sure and will not budge. You would probably be of the same mind. There are other things that I might entertain discussion and then there are those that I don't consider a priority to argue or relevant enough to consider.

By the way, you may call me Bruce if you like.

Blessings, trxx

Dear Bruce,

You said, [i]"My desire, and I'm sure yours, is for truth."[/i] We agree on this. Therefore let us seek the truth in its purest form - in the Word of God.
Jn 17:15-16 [color=CC3300]"My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. [b]Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.[/b]"[/color]

[b][size=medium]1[/size][/b]

I apologized earlier for the error you caught in the chronology of the page references by Joe Blackmon, which I quoted. While the sequencing may have been in error, still Joe's observation remains valid:

[i]However, what the character doesn’t do is say that there is only one way to heaven. In fact, the next quote from the character playing Jesus says “I am the BEST way any human can relate” (emphasis mine) to God. “Best” isn’t exclusive folks. When I’m at work, I have quite a bit of control over how I do my work. There are times where, when I have finished an assignment, that my supervisor will review it and say “Let’s do this”. Sometimes I find that what I did was good but their way was better. There may be a way to do the task even better than what my supervisor had suggested and that way might be best. [u]So, if Jesus is the BEST way that suggests by the very way that it was worded that there are other ways that are not as good but would still do the job. Saying Jesus is the BEST way is a far cry from saying He is the ONLY way, which is what the Bible teaches[/u]. - by Joe Blackmon[/i]

Subtle but fatal deception here, regardless of where the statement appeared in the book. Jesus said: [color=CC3300]“I am the way and the truth and the life. [b]No one comes to the Father except through me[/b]."[/color] (Jn 4:6) This is the truth and it's not what the book contains.

[b][size=medium]2[/size][/b]

I quote from one of your own earlier posts where you quoted Joe, and I trust that this is in the book:

[i]On page 182, the character meant to represent Jesus says “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions”. Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. [u]What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you[/u]'”.[/i]

Much more subtle but dangerous deception nonetheless. It creates the false impression that men don't have to seek God, and that they may live in ways that are clearly opposed to Christianity and still be "found" by God. God knows where you are. He doesn't need to find you in the literal sense. Just like the prodigal son, it is man that must repent and return to the Father to be "found".

[b]The truth is men must seek God[/b] even as His servants preach the gospel to all the world. They must turn away from false prophets and false teachings and consciously choose Him over others.
Mt 7:7 [color=CC3300]“Ask and it will be given to you; [b]seek and you will find[/b]; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."[/color]

[b][size=medium]3[/size][/b]

In your last post you said:
[i]As to artistic license, may I be so bold, and I'm going to even though I will probably be taken to task for it, that God used artistic license when He spoke of Himself in anthropomorphic terminology. He has no gender that He should be called Father but He asks us to call Him, "Abba, Father" and I appreciate that He allows me too. But that does not make Him to be a man. It only characterizes who He is relationally to us and in a manner that we can comprehend. [u]God has no arms but He asks in Isaiah 59:1, "Is My arm too short?." Does He have hands (Exodus 7:5), or, a face (Numbers 6:24), a mouth (Psalm 33:6), eyes (Psalm 34:15), or wings (Psalm 89:10)? The answer of course is no but He refers to Himself in language that we understand. The problem is that it creates an image in our mind that isn't true - the old white haired gentleman that is often seen in art. Shall we then condemn art as being heretical too?[/u] Or do we accept it as a humble attempt to portray God pictorially, with paint instead of words?[/i]

How dare you imply that God Almighty can be in any way dishonest as the author of "The Shack" is? He is God. He knows Himself and has every right to describe Himself in any way He sees fit. The answer to your series of questions above is not NO but YES. Yes he is is a Father, yes he has arms, yes He has hands, a face, a mouth, eyes, and wings (Ps 18:10). Nothing is impossible with God, or didn't you know this?. Lest you forget, Jesus said in Jn 10:30 [color=CC3300]"I and the Father are one.”[/color], and Jesus was fully a man. God can take the form of anything you can imagine, after all He is the Creator. You act as if you know God better than He does Himself! You know nothing of which you speak! You clearly have no more regard for God than you have for mere men.

[b]Isa 40:12-14 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?[/b]

[b][size=medium]4[/size][/b]

You said: [i][b]I agree that "God the Father is not a folksy old African woman who lives in a shack open to anyone who wishes to visit."[/b][/i] You agree that is NOT God but you justify this blasphemy as necessary for the story? Who is the Lord, and who is the servant? You expect God to bend his rules to promote the agenda of this blasphemer?

[b]Finally...[/b]

Mt 7:16-20 [color=CC3300]"[b]By their fruit you will recognize them[/b]. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."[/color]

All the points above are the fruit that I see from the author of "The Shack" and from you, Bruce. You are one with the author of "The Shack". [b]Both of you feel no fear [/b]when you take liberties with the character of God. [b]Both of you feel no pain[/b] when you shamelessly distort the character and the words of the One you are supposed to love above all else (if you are a Christian). [b]No child of God would dare do this.[/b]

Ps 111:10 [b]The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom[/b]; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.

Mt 22:37-38 [color=CC3300]Jesus replied: [b]“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[/b] This is the first and greatest commandment."[/color]

You may ascribe all kinds of good intentions to the author, and he may claim his children as his inspiration to try to refute the charge of commercial motivation, but we know him by his fruit as we know you by yours.

Leo

Leo,

I have much to say and my heart is full and troubled but I will refrain from answering and leave you having had the last opportunity to present your case. The post has taken on the very atmosphere that I do not desire to be a part of. I desire for you only that truth be found. I will not continue this exchange.

God bless, trxx

Dear trxx/Bruce,

If you will look deeply, you will find that the "atmosphere that you do not desire" which you speak of is one of truth and love. Others before me have offered you the same. I pray for God's love and light to guide you.

Leo

I copied the following from "The Shack" Forum:

New Book Study on The Shack
« on: September 18, 2008, 04:32:20 PM »
Hi everyone,

I am jumping in the "deep end" and starting to offer online "classes" to help people connect and talk about this wonderful life we have with Papa, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

To start off, I am offering a 9 week class on The Shack. Future classes will study "He Loves Me" by Wayne Jacobson, "The Lost Secret of the New Covenant" by Malcolm Smith, "The Great Dance" by Baxter Kruger, Bible studies, and much, much more!

This will be a class, so if you sign up, you will be expected to participate, and also to write your thoughts down (i.e., a "paper" but don't think of it like you are back in school!").

The cost of this is FREE.

Here is the course description:

Course Objective:
This class will look at the book "The Shack" by William P. Young to examine literary concepts such as allegory and metaphor, along with the central themes of God's love, the Trinity, and the living of the Christian life. We will examine parallels with the Christian faith demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God. This is a 9 week course, starting on October 6, 2008.

What do you have to do to sign up? First go here: [u]http://www.covenant-love.org/tots/[/u]
Click on the course title: A Journey Through "The Shack"

From there, you will need to register (on the right). Registration is free.

This will start up on October 6th! Many of you won't be used to this Moodle site, but don't worry. I will walk you through how to use this during the first week.

Blessings,
Brandon

Unbelievable! This 9-week course by the author and promoters of "The Shack" promises to cover topics like: God's love, the Trinity, Christian life, repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, all by studying the book "The Shack", without the Bible being mentioned anywhere in the course description. This group is transforming a blasphemous work of fiction into a movement of pseudo-Christians, basing their "growth" on a mere book of fiction, rather than the Living Word of God. Instead of Bible Studies, they are promoting "book studies" to know God.

This is like Aaron's sin when he made a golden calf while Moses was on the mountain with God:

[i]Ex 32:1-10 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “[u]Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD[/u].” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’ “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”[/i]

Aaron could also have argued that the idol was merely a work of art intended to bring the people closer to God (as promoters of The Shack do). It is clear in the passage that Aaron wanted the calf to represent God because he was planning a "festival to the Lord". Indeed, the golden calf was more accessible to the people than God, but it was not God -- and in creating the idol, Aaron disobeyed God just like the author of "The Shack".

Did God forgive Aaron's sinful disobedience because of his "good motive" and allow the people to come to Him through the golden calf? The answer is NO -- God would have destroyed Aaron and all the people of Israel who bowed down to the golden calf, if not for the intervention of Moses.

Please warn all of your loved ones to steer clear of the blasphemy that is "The Shack".

Greetings Leo

Thank you for sharing this information about this book here. A friend of my daughter is listening to this book on tape. It has been very eye opening to read what you have shared and I am passing it along to my daughter as a warning and reminder to be very careful what we put before our eyes.

God Bless
maryjane

Those of you who may have visited the "Shack Forum" a month or so ago would have seen many sections, and many posts by true Christians exposing the book "The Shack" for what it is. Apparently, the forum administrators have decided to delete all these Christian posts, and have reorganized the forum to contain only "Shack-friendly" posts. But even when all the articles are written by the administrators themselves, the truth of their duplicity still filters through.

I am pasting here some portions of explanations posted by chariszoe (Brandon), Administrator of "The Shack forum" in the FAQ section of that forum.

1. In response to the question: "Is this book true?", he said:

[i][u]A Matter of Truth[/u]

... So here is the thing ... [u]this book IS TRUE. But it is fictionalized in its account[/u] of the author's life.[/i]

2. In response to the question "How can someone write a book about God and let it be fiction?", Brandon said (referring to Biblical parables):

[i]The prodigal’s father, the unjust judge, the owner of the vineyard, the mother hen, the Rock, the lamb ... all of these are literary explorations of God in the context of story, [u]not pure theology. None of them can be taken beyond the boundaries of legitimate literary use[/u].[/i]

I will continue posting critiques like those above to warn the members and visitors of this forum about the heresy in "The Shack". Please read the earlier posts for other details.

(Before you read my story, I just want you to know that I read the topic already so far.)

Well, today was family day, and I thought it would be fun to go to a Family Christian Bookstore that was miles away in another city. (As you probably know, my parents and I sometimes have heated arguments about what the Bible says.)

Anyways, when riding in the car, a thought popped into my head, "What would be the first thing Mom will have in her hand when we walk in that store? Knowing her, it'd probably be the Shack book." At first, I thought it was kind of funny, but then, I thought, "I sure hope not!" I didn't give the warning much thought after that.

Okay, so we finally arrive at the store (and believe me, this is the first time I've been in a Family Christian Bookstore since being saved), and a feeling of elation overcame me. There was a sermon DVD playing on the TV screen here, Christian music there, books, toys for the little ones (including this really cool Jesus action figure), and the best part, BIBLES! Three rows of Bibles, sorted by translations! So I was milling through those and selected a couple to decide between, and the Holy Spirit led me to a book called "Taking a Stand for the Bible" by John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs. (I think it was Him, for as I wandered down the Bible Study Guide aisle, something unseen led my hand right to it without me even looking in that direction.)

So, when I found Mom, ready to show her what I found, instantly that feeling of elation disappeared, and fun time was over. "OH NO!" Mom had in her hand The Shack, and another guide book that explains the "theology" behind the Shack. "OOOH NOOO!" A feeling of despair as my eyes were probably bugging out. "NOOOOOOO! PLEASE NO!"

I couldn't help but feel that I had led my mother to Hell, because it was my suggestion that led us to the bookstore in the first place, and there she had the one book I was hoping she wouldn't pick up! I slapped my forehead in disbelief, I felt like crying but I couldn't. Needless to say, I had to do something, so I said, "Mom, that book is no good." Mom said, "What would you know about what's good and what isn't?" I said, "My fellow Brothers and Sisters at the Sermon Index all agree that this book is a work of blasphemy, that it misrepresents Who God truly is and blasphemes against the Holy Trinity. I can't explain to you all the things off hand, but just know I love you and don't want this book in our house."

Mom wouldn't listen, and instead, she said, "I love you too, but I'm an adult, and I can purchase whatever I want. You can't tell me what to purchase." I then paraphrased Brother Leo's story about the city boy and the country boy (thank you Brother Leo), but I saw I wasn't getting anywhere on my own, so it was prayer time. I searched for an empty aisle, and I bowed my head and asked quietly for Jesus to find some way, ANY way, to make Mom put those two books away. So, I decided to focus my attention elsewhere so as to not become worried, letting Jesus take care of the worries, and I decided to look for the Franklin Electronic Bibles I was interested in.

The electronic Bibles were up at the front counter area, and guess who else was there, Mom. There, she asked the cashier, "Is this book any good, or is it bad like my son says?" The cashier couldn't tell us first hand, not ever reading the book, but she did call who I think was the store owner. Knowing about the book from first-hand experience, he said, "I have heard from many people who have read the book saying how wonderful it is. Of course, I have heard from many others who have said that this book is complete heresy." I said, "Me," in a semi-serious manner. The man chuckled, and then continued, "If you do decide to purchase this book, you must realize that it is what it is, a work of FICTION. It isn't to be taken as the Holy Scriptures, just a simple work of fiction," then he looked at me and said, "right?" I said, "I guess so."

That was all fine and dandy, and I didn't judge anybody about it, but I did go back to the empty aisle to pray again, "that though it is a work of fiction, please, my Lord, find a way to make Mom put it back."

Well, we looked around together as a family, here and there, and then I saw the sheet music section. Being a musician, I couldn't help but look for some Christian music to perform. When I came by where my parents were sitting, I looked in the basket, and BEHOLD! The two Shack books mysteriously disappeared. I didn't dare ask why, possibly reigniting Mom's desire to purchase them, but I did thank Jesus in my heart. That feeling of elation returned, but this time, it was of praise and gratitude that Jesus answered my prayer, and not because "I was simply in a Christian bookstore". As quiet as my praying was (not even a whisper), He heard me! Not my will but HIS be done!

But wait, there's more. We were riding in the car after the bookstore, and I heard my Mom say to Dad, "I really wish I had enough money to purchase the Shack, but I already spent enough money. Whatever."

So, this is where the story ends and the asking begins. Brothers and Sisters, I need your help. Can you show me some excellent resources (besides the excellent stuff said here already) that can help me explain to Mom about the Shack? Any Scripture passages I may be overlooking, websites, books, sermons that nail the situation right on the spot, anything? What advice can you give me when trying to talk with Mom about things so as to not make her defensive right away? (I've tried confrontational before, and it never works. Being as nice as possible seems to work sometimes, but Mom still doesn't believe me.)

Realize what I've been learning to realize, that Mom is a Christian and loves Jesus, but she gets stuck on things that aren't of God. Her defense is usually "I'm an adult too," and, "Didn't God say 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'?" How can I both honor Mom and correct her at the same time without coming off as some kind of "holier-than-thou" Pharisee or "Bible pusher"? Or should I not approach her at all and let her make her own decisions, even ones that may possibly end her up in Hell? (Praying works, it's quite obvious that it does!)

I plan on returning to my local Family Christian Bookstore soon (not the far away one, because that was a special trip), but if something isn't done, the inevitable is bound to happen. Can you please help me sort it out, to possibly help me too lest I be doing something wrong? God bless you all!

Dear Jim,

I read your post with a lot of interest for I know of your struggles at home from your previous threads. It's good to see that your interaction with your parents has improved and you are able to talk things through, although still with a little friction. I'm specially happy that you are now able to stand back and pray rather than confront your parents head on. God can solve problems for us if we allow Him to work in our lives.

It seems your mom has reached a stage where she is willing to listen to you somewhat and that is major progress. Just remember to give her the respect she wants from you, and which God commands you to give her also. Maybe a simple act of deference before attempting to correct or rebuke is all that is needed - something like: "Mom, can I give you some advice about this?" Just asking for their permission before jumping in can work wonders.

I praise God that the information posted in this thread about "The Shack" has been helpful to you. Hopefully, others who visit this forum will also understand the dangers of that book.

Below are some video links about "The Shack" that you might want to look at and see if any of them could be helpful for you Mom:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCl3NPrhrgE&feature=related]CARM[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2qIRrjMevE&feature=fvw]Crosstalk[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y&feature=related]Doctrine[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHV7xNhu18k&feature=related]The Shack Theology[/url]

In Christ,
Leo

Thank you Brother Leo for your help and neat advice about the act of deference. I think I did ask Mom if I could give my opinion on the book, but I think that it was God who ultimately took care of things there.

Thank you as well for the video links. I checked them out. In one of the comments, this website was mentioned.

http://www.spiritual-research-network.com/theshack.html

Contains a lot of links to reviews, articles, and radio programs. Thank you again Brother Leo, and God bless you.

Anyone who dares to place words in the mouth of God commits a sin.

[i]Pr 30:1-6 The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an oracle:

This man declared to Ithiel, to Ithiel and to Ucal:

“I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man’s understanding.
I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."[/i]

We are commanded:

Mt 22:36-40 [color=CC3300]“ ‘[u]Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment[/u]. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”[/color]

There is no love for God in "The Shack". All it displays is a humanist (non-Biblical) love for people and an underlying love for self. And that is what the "itching ears" of the world want to hear. That's why it is so popular.

A Biblical love for people would move one to lead people to God and His Word, not to a fictionalized and distorted God-character that has no basis in truth.

Mk 3:28-29 [color=CC3300]"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”[/color]

Leo,

you got a point if the holy spirit did not led them to do it all like this.
But at the end of the day, we should ask,
what is the fruit. If the people who read it get closer to Jesus, it's ok. If the people get really close to Jesus, close to his heart, they are close to the light, and close to his guidance, which is far from darkness and sin.

I have the book somewhere. I didn't read it. But I heard and read much talk pro and con about it, and most con seemed to be fear driven (remember 1Jn4:16+1Jn4:18). Fear, that the people somehow will fall off. So you must look at the fruit.
For sure the book is not perfect. But so is almost every christian service. God gives you a task, and so fast we have mixed it up with wrong motivations that we dont understand. Even Peter made heavy mistakes, but despite of it God used him mightily.

steez

you got a point if the holy spirit did not led them to do it all like this.

There is no doubt that God can use anything and anyone, even devils, to accomplish his purpose. However, I cannot see how this book could have been inspired in any way by the Holy Spirit, for "The Shack" is blasphemous. It presents a distorted picture of God, the Trinity, and God's Word.

The author may claim to high heavens that he wrote this book with good intentions, but whatever these intentions may have been, it definitely did not include loving God and honoring God as he truly is. The book reduces the Godhead to a trio of humanistic creatures derived from one man's imagination rather than Scripture. It is inexcusable. The author has Scripture available to him as basis for representing God correctly.

I'm sorry if I may seem harsh about this, but I cannot sit quietly by and watch someone malign the God whom I love in this way.

Leo wrote:

There is no love for God in "The Shack". All it displays is a humanist (non-Biblical) love for people and an underlying love for self. And that is what the "itching ears" of the world want to hear. That's why it is so popular.

I dont bother myself much to read fiction unless it be something like Bunyan pilgrim's progress or C.S.Lewis Screwtape Letters. I know that George MacDonald wrote some good fiction but have not read any of his books.

As for today christian fiction writters hardly will i be convinced of reading any of them. Anyway that's my personal preferences :-)

I am as orthodox as they come with a fire in my heart for Him and for truth. Perhaps that is part of the reason that I cannot be quiet when I come upon any unfair representation of truth. But this I know, I cannot speak to the truth or theology of anything or anyone without having first studied that which is in question. If you have not read it and do not intend to then so be it. You are still my brother or sister. You simply are not in my mind in a position to report on something you do not have firsthand knowledge.

Well said Bruce. I have not read The Shack myself so I cannot speak on it one way or another but I do appreciate the meekness with which you have approached this thread and the clarity with which you have expressed your viewpoint.

In Christ,

Ron