Thread: So I Started Reading "The Shack" This Morning...

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Yes, you read that correctly. I've had 4 different people at our church ask me about The Shack. And while I've been able to comment on what others have said, I figured it was time I read the thing for myself so I could comment more knowledgabley.

I've read the Foreword and the first two chapters.

So far, we have the main character being betrayed by the church when he was a 13 year old, have a terrible father (which is bound to result in a low view of God), and the initial seeds of the feminization of God (yes, I already know the Father is a female and so is the Holy Spirit in the book; but we have a tale that's meant to parallel the cross where an Indian maiden is a "Christ figure"). Did I already mention ?

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is autobiographical for William Young...

Just make sure you have a bucket beside your desk as you read...

Since you are taking heavy doses of today's broad evangelical version of "syrup of ipecac," an effective emetic plain and simple, you might want to counter it with a few chapters in the Institutes, or Wilhelmus A Brakel, or a Puritan. I started re-reading the Institutes and find that it helps me keep my breakfast down quite nicely, even on a day when the Dow is tanking again.

Why continue reading, throw it in the fire, repent and then ask the people why they would to consider such trash?

I have a review of the Shack here.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Why continue reading, throw it in the fire, repent and then ask the people why they would to consider such trash?

Why does Rev. Phillips need to repent for reading this book so he can best explain why it is wrong to his congregation?

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is autobiographical for William Young...

You can check out his interview on Steve Brown, Etc..

He should continual reading so his response can be informed and thoughtful rather than visceral and hammering as your response is. Really Don, take a deep breath and think about your answers a bit longer. Your zeal is admirable but your tact needs some work.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Why continue reading, throw it in the fire, repent and then ask the people why they would to consider such trash?

I have read the book as well. I am not as articulate as greenbaggins in my review - I just found it badly written from a literary perspective and theologically suspect throughout. I am sure it has an audience - there are thousands of Christians in America and elsewhere who are being fed poor (or no) doctrine on a weekly basis so it's not much of a surprise they lap this up. I was given this book by a well-intentioned, passionate but ill-directed charismatic female friend from Florida who loved it. I struggled with it from about the first chapter and only kept going to the end so I could talk to her about it afterwards. I don't think it was a waste of time to read it though (even though I'd have much rather been reading Piper or Keller) - I think it's important to be able to engage with others on well-known books on the subject of theology/Christianity, even when we don't agree with them (I've also read the God Delusion and the Da Vinca Code recently on that basis).

Just for the record, those within my church who asked about the book did not do so from a "Oh, this is a great book, pastor! Validate my enthusiasm!" Instead, it was more of a "All of my friends are reading this and think it's great, but I am troubled by it" form of questioning.

I just finished reading The Shack this morning, because people were asking me about it. I did not want to spend the $10.00 but figured I would get a first hand view, instead of reading reviews. This was a really hard book for me to read.

I do not see how Eugene Peterson says this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his.

Now I will read the reviews to see if I came up with the same concerns as others.

I had read an interview a while back where he discusses the work; it is very autobiographically influenced.

His theology is still awful. No doctrine of original sin (we become "bad" as we endure the pains of life inflicted upon us by others), and a lot of other stuff.

Aren't the Canons of Dordt a responsive document to all of Arminius' teaching, that our 5 points are responsive points?

Was Luther in error when he responded to Erasmus' On Free Will with Bondage of the Will?

I wouldn't recommend a new Christian, especially one from this sort of spiritual background, reading this book but shouldn't our pastors be able to read controversial or "hot" books so they can defuse them? Isn't this what defending the flock is all about?

Besides, didn't Paul quote pagans in his apologetics?

When you read portions of a book like the Shack, is it like reading the Book of Mormon without the burning feeling in the bosom?
Maybe read a portion of it, enough to know what the reviews are talking about. Then you can spare your mind from being defiled, anymore than is necessary.
Sometimes heretical ideas put in a book form can have some value in that it further causes the truth to shine in contrast to it. It is sad to see some people suggest that this is a worthwhile book. [ I met someone who thought it was}
This convinces me that we should do all the more to convey truth verbally,and be ready to put some solid reading material into the hands of those willing to search out these truths

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is autobiographical for William Young...

You can check out his interview on Steve Brown, Etc..

Has Steve Brown gone completely off the deep end? I knew he was in trouble with one of his recent books which shows off his full-fledged antinomianism, but it seems on his program, linked above, that all he does is interview (with great accolades) emergents and worse... ?

I, too, read the book. Several people in my congregation were disturbed because of folks in their families and work places were talking about the book in glowing fashion. I also kept running into the thing in the work place. I really didn't want to read it. I have precious little time. So, I borrowed the book from a man in our congregation who was given a copy by a co-worker of his. When he gave it to me he was wearing a dust mask and latex gloves

I'm glad I read it. It is a weak piece of literature and theologically destitute, but after reading it I can speak to it with authority. I have been able to guide a few folks out of the insanity of its 'teaching'. I would not have been able to do that had I not read it.

If you are not closely involved with new age people you may not notice what it is. The subtlety in the message.
You may see the obvious gross errors which are abundantly obvious without a thorough reading. So why read it all to comment accurately? Comment accurately that it is not good reading from a small amount or others reviews who you respect?

But I certainly would want to protect my congregation and tell them there is no value in reading it and potential danger.

So if as a pastor you feel you must, then you have the freedom to read it cover to cover. But I say that is unnecessary for a valid opinion

There are many books now coming out on spiritual emotional healing.
They substitute this healing of emotional damage for the true gospel

They make God to be one who is about healing their emotional damages and traumas instead of their sin.

I was asked to write a review to promote one just he other day

These are obscuring the gospel that is for all people and all conditions and with one solution.

If they want to read fiction it is one thing but this is a perverted view of God and people should strongly be warned to avoid such things.

They are designed to draw people into the politically correct culture of feelings being the most important value and God is female or anything goes if it helps us.

This is not like CS Lewis fiction or Tolkien or Shakespeare

To me this is false religion, new age religion.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 02:36:00 EST-----

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Why continue reading, throw it in the fire, repent and then ask the people why they would to consider such trash?

Why does Rev. Phillips need to repent for reading this book so he can best explain why it is wrong to his congregation?

that was a joke, for emphasis

In other posts I have said go wash your eyes out with scripture. whatever.

take a breath and think about it.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Why continue reading, throw it in the fire, repent and then ask the people why they would to consider such trash?

Why does Rev. Phillips need to repent for reading this book so he can best explain why it is wrong to his congregation?

that was a joke, for emphasis

In other posts I have said go wash your eyes out with scripture. whatever.

take a breath and think about it.

My apologies then.

Since we don't have each other's facial expressions or vocal tones, smileys do help convey sarcasm, especially

You'd think with as many sarcastic friends I have, I'd be better at seeing it.

Originally Posted by Theoretical

My apologies then.

Since we don't have each other's facial expressions or vocal tones, smileys do help convey sarcasm, especially

You'd think with as many sarcastic friends I have, I'd be better at seeing it.

My fault, My dry humor exceed the normative. I should have used another word or the since you could not see me smiling.

I heard about the book sometime ago. I refuse to condemn any book before I read it.

So, I just finished reading The Shack this afternoon. I read it because others were talking about it.

Seems like a combination of New Age, Arminianism, and Walt Disney to me. The author's literary style was easy enough to read, (in places he was boring and predictible), but the bad theology really irritated me.

However, it's fiction, and should be read as such. The problem with so-called "Christian Fiction" is that there is only a thin line between "Christian Fiction" and Mythology.

The author of this book is on the wrong side of that thin line through out most of the book.

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

I heard about the book sometime ago. I refuse to condemn any book before I read it.

So, I just finished reading The Shack this afternoon. I read it because others were talking about it.

Must you read an entire book before deciding to recommend people not read it?


Seems like a combination of New Age, Arminianism, and Walt Disney to me. The author's literary style was easy enough to read, (in places he was boring and predictible), but the bad theology really irritated me.

However, it's fiction, and should be read as such. The problem with so-called "Christian Fiction" is that there is only a thin line between "Christian Fiction" and Mythology.

The author of this book is on the wrong side of that thin line through out most of the book.

To me the greater problem is people I know think these kinds of books are not fiction but more like typology or allegory or even true.

This is what God is for to heal our emotional damage.
We want to invite people to God to heal our emotions and make us feel better about life.

God is there for me, to get what I need from God.

It is not a God centered gospel of God your Creator demands your perfection and worship, you have failed and deserve His punishment to come, He made a remedy if you will repent believe and submit your life to Him as your Lord, believing, trusting and obeying His word and in Christ's payment for your punishment.

Even if it were only for Christians to use for Christians, it presents a false concept of God. And in our culture is is a subtle way of getting people to shift their beliefs, as is apparent with its acceptance.

Just that amount of reading of the book would give you enough ammunition to instruct people as to why it's garbage.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Must you read an entire book before deciding to recommend people not read it?

I don't know where you got that idea. I did not write that. Please do not insert sentences in my posts. Apparently you were trying to ask a question of me?

The answer to your question is NO. What I said was:

I heard about the book sometime ago. I refuse to condemn any book before I read it.

So, I just finished reading The Shack this afternoon. I read it because others were talking about it.

It was a statement of fact. I finished reading the book this afternoon. I did not like the book. If you asked me yesterday, while I was reading it, I would have said that I do not like the book. It you asked on Saturday when I started reading the book, I wouldn't have recommended it then either. The many theological problems of this book are apparent at the outset.

My post, into which you inserted your question stated that I refuse to CONDEMN a book before I read it. There is a difference between condemning and/or making a recommendation.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is autobiographical for William Young...

You can check out his interview on Steve Brown, Etc..

Has Steve Brown gone completely off the deep end? I knew he was in trouble with one of his recent books which shows off his full-fledged antinomianism, but it seems on his program, linked above, that all he does is interview (with great accolades) emergents and worse... ?

*sigh*. There was a time when I found Steve Brown's shallow yet personable comments on various doctrines helpful. But after perusing his blog a bit, I'm sorry to see what he's become as of late.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

You can check out his interview on Steve Brown, Etc..

Has Steve Brown gone completely off the deep end? I knew he was in trouble with one of his recent books which shows off his full-fledged antinomianism, but it seems on his program, linked above, that all he does is interview (with great accolades) emergents and worse... ?

*sigh*. There was a time when I found Steve Brown's shallow yet personable comments on various doctrines helpful. But after perusing his blog a bit, I'm sorry to see what he's become as of late.

Theognome

Ditto to that. When I was a young preacher and bucking the Arminianism that surrounded me Steve Brown's little radio bits were a breath of fresh air for me.

I have been trying to lose weight lately. May I borrow The Shack when you are done to speed up the process

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Must you read an entire book before deciding to recommend people not read it?

I don't know where you got that idea. I did not write that. Please do not insert sentences in my posts. Apparently you were trying to ask a question of me?

The answer to your question is NO. What I said was:

I heard about the book sometime ago. I refuse to condemn any book before I read it.

So, I just finished reading The Shack this afternoon. I read it because others were talking about it.

It was a statement of fact. I finished reading the book this afternoon. I did not like the book. If you asked me yesterday, while I was reading it, I would have said that I do not like the book. It you asked on Saturday when I started reading the book, I wouldn't have recommended it then either. The many theological problems of this book are apparent at the outset.

My post, into which you inserted your question stated that I refuse to CONDEMN a book before I read it. There is a difference between condemning and/or making a recommendation.

I guess no I did not see a difference in condemning and saying I don't think you should read it. or I wouldn't recommend it or I think its a waste of time, or it might even be dangerous, or I think other books would be better use of your time.

It was following the thread of people saying a minister has the right to read a book to let his congregation know what he thinks.

It was a neutral question to see what you honestly thought. Not a condemnation of your choice to do it or a judgment.

I am truly interested if people think they must read an entire work before it would be fair to not recommend or condemn

Boy people are jumpy lately is something in the water or did I forget to bathe??
I am sorry for any offense in my poor or incomplete wording.

My own opinion is that all of us pretty well know the gist of this book without reading it. Why must a pastor experience such drivel in order to be informed.
Other various things that we also desire to occupy no space in our mind are floating around daily but we dont have to experience each of them personally to know they are not conducive to pure thinking! Think of other notorious periodicals on the market and consider whether you must be informed of their content to advise against partaking of them!
This reminds me of a time while working as an R.N. and having inservice given to the group by the local police department on the 'evils' of smoking marijuana. I was totally horrified as I watched them pass a joint around to the group to puff on, in order to 'experience it' and know what it truly was. I saw what I thought to be otherwise clearheaded adults think nothing of puffing away on an illegal marijuana joint! How skewed is such thinking?

Originally Posted by christiana

My own opinion is that all of us pretty well know the gist of this book without reading it. Why must a pastor experience such drivel in order to be informed.
Other various things that we also desire to occupy no space in our mind are floating around daily but we dont have to experience each of them personally to know they are not conducive to pure thinking! Think of other notorious periodicals on the market and consider whether you must be informed of their content to advise against partaking of them!

It's not really a fair comparison to pit these periodicals against "The Shack" (though it's worth about the same as such rags). There are no Christian purveyors of such filthy material that are claiming that said material is recommended for Christian reading, and edifying for the church. However, this is JUST what the purveyors and many Christian reviewers of this ridiculous book ARE in fact doing.

The case is therefore quite different. The book has a foothold in the Christian community, and, I think, because of its popularity and marketing, really ought to be read by pastors where the book has any appreciable hold. (the same might be said for "The Bondage Breaker" and other books that a pastor's congregation may be exposed to). Do you HAVE to read it? No - but your critique will be well informed, and, most importantly, you can tailor your remarks against the book specifically to YOUR sheep... deal specifically with the areas YOUR sheep are vulnerable to - this is something handing out a canned review cannot enable you to do.

Originally Posted by christiana

My own opinion is that all of us pretty well know the gist of this book without reading it. Why must a pastor experience such drivel in order to be informed.
Other various things that we also desire to occupy no space in our mind are floating around daily but we dont have to experience each of them personally to know they are not conducive to pure thinking! Think of other notorious periodicals on the market and consider whether you must be informed of their content to advise against partaking of them!
This reminds me of a time while working as an R.N. and having inservice given to the group by the local police department on the 'evils' of smoking marijuana. I was totally horrified as I watched them pass a joint around to the group to puff on, in order to 'experience it' and know what it truly was. I saw what I thought to be otherwise clearheaded adults think nothing of puffing away on an illegal marijuana joint! How skewed is such thinking?

I agree. One often hears the comment, "If you haven't read it, how do you know anything is wrong with it?" However, we really don't have to watch pornography to know it's sick and evil regardless of how many people - even church-going people - are watching it.

I.e., I never read the book or saw the movie that touted Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a baby. So I must be wrong for condemning them?

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Proverbs 18:13

I have never even heard of this book....

I think there's a pretty big difference between condemning pornography and condemning a work of literature, philosophy, or theology. There's no real mystery about what's going on in a pornographic movie or magazine. Very few people (even staunch secularists) are going to argue that a Christian "just doesn't understand" the purpose or meaning of a **** film.

On the other hand, if you're criticizing ideas, its important to make sure you're understand them thoroughly. And it can be difficult to understand them unless you've read them entirely. I have a friend who is an avowed follower of Nietsche, and I really can't argue with him because I haven't read Nietsche. Even though I can tell that we have philosophical differences, I can't really understand those differences until I've read the philosophy that he draws from. That's not to say you can't even comment on something you haven't read or seen - just that you probably won't be able to make a complete critique unless you are familiar with it.

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

Originally Posted by christiana

My own opinion is that all of us pretty well know the gist of this book without reading it. Why must a pastor experience such drivel in order to be informed.
Other various things that we also desire to occupy no space in our mind are floating around daily but we dont have to experience each of them personally to know they are not conducive to pure thinking! Think of other notorious periodicals on the market and consider whether you must be informed of their content to advise against partaking of them!
This reminds me of a time while working as an R.N. and having inservice given to the group by the local police department on the 'evils' of smoking marijuana. I was totally horrified as I watched them pass a joint around to the group to puff on, in order to 'experience it' and know what it truly was. I saw what I thought to be otherwise clearheaded adults think nothing of puffing away on an illegal marijuana joint! How skewed is such thinking?

I agree. One often hears the comment, "If you haven't read it, how do you know anything is wrong with it?" However, we really don't have to watch pornography to know it's sick and evil regardless of how many people - even church-going people - are watching it.

I.e., I never read the book or saw the movie that touted Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a baby. So I must be wrong for condemning them?

In that case, you know the heresy without watching, the substance to condemn is clear and obvious. Reading "The Shack" seems to me to be a different issue. I cannot really intelligently and succinctly inform people about the heresies and dangers of a book I haven't read. I put very little faith in book reviews.

EDIT: Ms. Kathleen beat me to the post!E

Originally Posted by ServantofGod

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

Originally Posted by christiana

My own opinion is that all of us pretty well know the gist of this book without reading it. Why must a pastor experience such drivel in order to be informed.
Other various things that we also desire to occupy no space in our mind are floating around daily but we dont have to experience each of them personally to know they are not conducive to pure thinking! Think of other notorious periodicals on the market and consider whether you must be informed of their content to advise against partaking of them!
This reminds me of a time while working as an R.N. and having inservice given to the group by the local police department on the 'evils' of smoking marijuana. I was totally horrified as I watched them pass a joint around to the group to puff on, in order to 'experience it' and know what it truly was. I saw what I thought to be otherwise clearheaded adults think nothing of puffing away on an illegal marijuana joint! How skewed is such thinking?

I agree. One often hears the comment, "If you haven't read it, how do you know anything is wrong with it?" However, we really don't have to watch pornography to know it's sick and evil regardless of how many people - even church-going people - are watching it.

I.e., I never read the book or saw the movie that touted Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a baby. So I must be wrong for condemning them?

In that case, you know the heresy without watching, the substance to condemn is clear and obvious. Reading "The Shack" seems to me to be a different issue. I cannot really intelligently and succinctly inform people about the heresies and dangers of a book I haven't read. I put very little faith in book reviews.

EDIT: Ms. Kathleen beat me to the post!E

I'm sneaky like that.

So I Started Reading "The Shack" This Morning...

Originally Posted by Montanablue

I have never even heard of this book....

I think there's a pretty big difference between condemning pornography and condemning a work of literature, philosophy, or theology. There's no real mystery about what's going on in a pornographic movie or magazine. Very few people (even staunch secularists) are going to argue that a Christian "just doesn't understand" the purpose or meaning of a **** film.

On the other hand, if you're criticizing ideas, its important to make sure you're understand them thoroughly. And it can be difficult to understand them unless you've read them entirely. I have a friend who is an avowed follower of Nietsche, and I really can't argue with him because I haven't read Nietsche. Even though I can tell that we have philosophical differences, I can't really understand those differences until I've read the philosophy that he draws from. That's not to say you can't even comment on something you haven't read or seen - just that you probably won't be able to make a complete critique unless you are familiar with it.

We don't (or shouldn't) view pornography, but we better be well-acquainted with and able to answer the world's ideas and philosophy of sexual morality. Same is true with errant theological perspectives.

We should not go to a heretical "church" service but we should know what they are teaching.

In his book on Discernment, Tim Challies addresses this very thing. How can a pastor address his flock to read with discernment and all the while be screening the shallow, unclear and blasphemous books they inquire about. Is he not subject to having his own mind influenced by such while he reads? Our focus is on the truth, not error.

I have read The Shack some time ago. Concerning The Shack Tim Challes writes: "The Shack says little about how God has communicated or will continue to communicate with us in Scripture. There are a couple of times that it mentions the Bible, but never does it point to Scripture as a real authority or as the sufficient Word of God."

“The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules,” says Sarayu (as the Holy Spirit) in The Shack. “You will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.” The deity says in The Shack, “ I don’t need to punish people.”

I have big problems with what I consider emergent church narration, such as The Shack, Blue Like Elvis, and Velvet Elvis. Scripture is used to emphasize God’s love for man—making God culturally relevant, but God’s wrath and judgment are never emphasized in the three books. Ones own story is on par with the stories in the Bible and Scripture is not emphasized or is trivialized.

William Young lives in Portland, Oregon, and another Portland area Christian author, Randy Alcorn, has challenged Young on changing some wording in the book and to this date, Young has refused. Why should he change it? He is making big bucks and has been on NBC's "Today", etc.

I think of the Scripture, the time is coming when men will not endure sound teaching.