Amen and amen and amen!

David

I couldn’t agree more.

My problem with a lot of modern religious movements is that they try to do therapy by treating the symptoms instead of the disease. That’s one of my chief criticisms of Young. He focuses on “brokenness” and ignores the fact that sin is what produces brokenness.

We cannot heal people with hugs until we take them to the cross for redemption; to be made new in Christ.

Rob

However, he replaces those with even more flawed views of God. I cannot get past what I consider to be severely flawed theology in the book.

that is why I would not be able to recommend the book.

God Speed,
Lew

To me, the book advocates truth statements, couched in fiction. Whether truth-statements are given directly, or embedded in fiction, it is completely acceptable to analyse the truth statements.

The fictional framework of this book does not absolve its responsibility to present truth accurately. I think a book like this MUST be read with discernment.

“If someone has the first view and The Shack opens their minds and hearts to view God as someone with whom they can have a relationship – that is a good thing. There is still plenty of time for them to continue their journey and find a true, Biblical, picture of God.”

In light of the prohibitions contained in the Scriptures concerning the augmenting the “picture” of God (see Exodus 20:4-6) how do you justify your words with the Scriptural prohibition?

Certainly we can look at the work, have a conversation about it and use it for a tool to appeal to the correct “picture” of God from Scripture from the made up “fictional” one. God does work in mysterious ways and can use stones to bring people to Him. But does that excuse those who know the truth from excusing or violating the clear Words of the Scriptures? What you seem to advocate here is that “anything goes” as long as people find out about the God who cares and desires a relationship. Truly – does anything go? What parameters do you draw – where far will you go – where will you not go?

Rob

Lew makes a good point about the graven images thing. I just ignored it because I thought the issue of “fiction” took care of that. That this book is fiction, and my comment about it, bears no resemblance at all to Rob’s comment “I am tired of this excuse: “It is just fiction” – it seems it is trotted out as a deceit to justify all sorts of things.” The book is a goodhearted fictional account of one man’s struggle. Likening this work to the deceitful politically correct excuses for public television, pre-porn theatrical releases, or lewd behavior on radio is to miss the mark. The politically correct purveyors of that trash in fact, do not say the works are fiction at all, they say the works reflect “real life” and are therefore culturally relevant. The Shack is goodhearted. Therefore, it’s not an attempt, Davinci Code style, to take people into an imaginary place where anything goes.

Author’s more often expose their own soul searching on their pages rather than attempt to change opinion. When I read The Shack, that is what I read “between the lines.” I find someone – both the author and the protagonist – searching for a connection to God. The protagonist and I have a similar experience – the loss of a child – but I did not identify very well with him at all on that level. I never lost, pushed away or doubted God in my personal experience. My response to the politically correct question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is “What do good things happen to bad people?”

On the other hand, I do identify with the device the author used to allow the protagonist to spend time with God. It would have been a very different book if Mack had spent the whole weekend speaking to God as Moses did in Exodus – looking at his backside.

Jesus used fiction (I assume most of his analogies were composites from His earthly experience, not actual persons) to illustrate principles for living properly. When He told of three servants, entrusted with money by their masters, He was making a point about being responsible with our assignments until He returned. He used as character’s three men with “masters.” They were slaves. To view The Shack as if it were teaching “truths” is to view Jesus’ story and suggest that He endorsed slavery. The character (Mack) had moved away from God. In his dream or vision, he re-characterized God so he could move closer. The Shack does not suggest that everyone has to accept Mack’s view of the Trinity the same way.

More importantly, it does not seem to occur to any of you that the characters were in Mack’s head – it was not God, it was not Jesus, it was not the Holy Spirit – they were character’s in a dream that occurred in Mack’s head. They were not characterized as the real God, the real Jesus, or the real Holy Spirit, speaking inside a fictional piece. They were fiction, inside fiction. What some of you also seem to miss is that the author explained to Mack (through the character who Mack’s brain chose to depict God) why he appeared as a woman; then as a man. That does not constitute idolatry.

Mack is a creature of his environment. The author and his character cannot help but be influenced by that environment and culture. The author, whether he intended to or not, reveals how those struggling on the periphery of the pagan world who are trying to draw closer to the God are thinking. That should help us choose words to help them to the Biblical truth; help them pull away from the contradictory messages our culture has about God.

The promo on the cover does indeed say it will change your view of God forever. That’s a pretty open promise and is pretty much advertising-speak for whatever you want it to mean. The Shack does not “preach” in a Mein Kampf style that we must accept God as a large black lady in an apron. If that’s what you get out of it, you probably shouldn’t pick up any of C.S. Lewis’ stuff. If your view of God is that he wrote a book that had a lot of rules to be followed upon threat of a heavenly sword – this should be a change of view. The book does not say it will change God forever, just your view. If someone has the first view and The Shack opens their minds and hearts to view God as someone with whom they can have a relationship – that is a good thing. There is still plenty of time for them to continue their journey and find a true, Biblical, picture of God.

Finally, the original three points Dave Miller makes about The Shack are ones that I agree with totally. The Shack is a “think piece” that lends itself to discussion and should, in a good theologians hands, provide teachable moments in seminars, Bible-study classes and groups.