Remix – #92. The Shack
Jul 29th by Jon“The Shack will change the way you think about God forever.” – Kathy Lee Gifford, Co-Host of NBC’s Today Show
If you know me at all, you know that when Kathy Lee Gifford speaks, I listen. So when I saw KPG, something we fans call her, gave the Shack a shout out, I decided to read it.
Actually, I decided to read it because I wanted the remix to be different than the original post I wrote on the Shack, a Christian novel that has become one of the best selling books in the United States.
But I initially didn’t want to read it for a few reasons:
1. I tend to stay away from massively popular books, music, etc.
2. A handful of people I like and respect disliked it.
3. Other people I know aggressively promised me it would “change my life.”
4. I was jealous of the success the author, William P. Young, was experiencing.
Those reasons don’t make me look particularly good and are mostly prideful, shallow excuses not to engage in something. So I got over them and picked up the book.
What is about to follow is not a book review. Bloggers like Tim Challies have already written great reviews with more depth and analysis than I am capable of. This is not a detailed theological study into the author’s handling of the Trinity or anything else. While I hold such discussions as dear, that’s honestly not my strength or the purpose of this site. And lastly, this is not about the author, who my friends at North Point say is a pretty amazing guy. I don’t know him and to focus this strictly on him would be fake.
Despite revealing a few plot spoilers, this is going to be a look at the ripples this book has caused. The reactions the Christian community has had and the impact the work has made on the culture of our faith. They are not difficult to find. They fill up Amazon reviews and I got some good, honest comments on this subject the first time I wrote about it. But that’s enough introduction.
Here are some questions or statements people are raising about the book, “The Shack.”
1. It was written for his kids and published in his garage.
Sometimes, hardcore fans of the Shack will defend it by saying, “Don’t get all bent out of shape, this is a book he wrote for his kids.” And that’s true. Young has said often that he wrote this book for his kids. But upon realizing the power and potential of it, he enlisted two other men to help craft the version that was published. And he’s really upfront about that. On page two of the book it clearly states, “A novel by William P. Young in collaboration with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings.” In the back of the book Young further states, “His (Wayne’s) enthusiasm brought in the others to refine the story and to prepare it to share with a wider audience, both in print and we hope in film. He and Brad bore the lion’s share of work in the three major rewrites that brought this story to its final form,…” I think that is awesome. I have been touched by this book and would not have experienced that if Young and his team did not dedicate more than a year to create what I experienced. I think when we amplify the origin of the book, by pretending that we have secretly found something one person wrote for their children we can sort of insult the deliberate skill applied to creating this novel by a team of experts.
2. “Jesus says ‘True Dat’ in the book.”
I wish. This is a common misconception about “the Shack”. I did some careful research and I think this urban legend originated because on page 119 of the paperback version, the God character says, “Sho ’nuff!” But when you go back and study the book, you’ll realize that that on page 110 the Jesus character actually says, “True, that,” and not “True Dat.” I was hoping he did, because that would have felt a little hip hop to me and I think hip hop needs all the love it can get considering what is going to happen this fall. What’s happening? My mid-50s minister father is taking hip hop dance lessons. I am torn between thinking, “Hooray! I hope when I am that age I still do new stuff” and agreeing with the rapper Nas, “Hip hop is dead.”
3. “Stop analyzing it. It’s a work of fiction.”
When people disagree with the theology of the book or the way God is represented, readers often respond by reminding you it’s just a work of fiction. Again, that’s true. The challenge though is that so were the parables. And if you tried to tell someone how much you loved the prodigal son story and they replied, “Why are you analyzing it, it’s just fiction?” that would be really frustrating. We, as a culture, are constantly pulling truth and wisdom and knowledge from things that are fictional. Facing the Giants was a fictional movie but lots of people found truth and encouragement in that for instance. And clearly there’s a difference between Young writing a fictional novel and Jesus telling a parable, but that’s not the point. The point is that labeling something as fictional does not automatically mean that we should accept or reject the very non fictional ideas within it. Young’s characters wrestle with real things and just because they are done within the context of a novel does not mean we can’t approach them with care and consideration.
4. God is portrayed an African American Woman.
That’s true and I will admit, some of the folksy language that the God character used in this book threw me at times. Hearing her say things like, “Child, you ain’t heard nuthin’ yet” felt foreign to me. And sometimes the “she-ism” of the whole thing felt a little forced to get a rise out of the reader, like on page 177 when the main character remarks, “So I guess all I can do is follow her.” Young could have easily said, “follow God” in that situation but maybe it would not have had the same impact. But I didn’t have a huge problem with Young portraying God as a woman and here’s why – I do the same thing in my heart sometimes, only in a very different way. At times, I have made God an angry tyrant, out for my destruction and waiting for me to fail so He can punish me and shame me. I have twisted His nature of love with brutal clarity into a nature of judgment so many times. So instead of responding to Young’s interpretation, I was forced to look at how I often have written God in my own heart. And although what I found was gross, Young’s version inspired me to think on my own and for that I am extremely grateful.
5. The book is emotionally manipulative.
I think “manipulative” is a strong word and doesn’t reflect the heart of the authors, who appear to be genuine and compassionate in their desire to share this book. I will say however, that the book is “emotionally deliberate.” In choosing the death of a little girl as the framework for the story, the authors choose the most emotional situation known to mankind. And they admit as much in the context of the story on page 59, “Something in the heart of most human beings simply cannot abide pain inflicted on the innocent, especially children … Even in such a world of relative morality, causing harm to a child is still considered absolutely wrong. Period!” If instead of Missy, the adorable 6 year old, Young had told a tale of his 42-year old brother getting murdered the impact would not have been the same. The book would not have touched, “the heart of most human beings.” But I applaud Young for that decision. He wanted the most people possible to connect with this book so he chose the most powerful example. And that’s not unusual. If in the movie, “The Sixth Sense,” the main character had been a 38 year old dentist instead of the little boy that could see dead people, would you have liked the movie as much? I too understand the need to emotionally engage people. When I wrote about how I would like to start a charity I didn’t just say, “I should start a charity.” I started the post by saying that my four year old daughter thought a picture of a starving African child was pretend. I wasn’t trying to manipulate you. I was trying to engage you.
6. I don’t like one section, therefore the whole book stinks.
There are sections of the book I disagree with. Things that are different than what I believe or choices that are made that I might not make. But I struggle with the idea that because I don’t agree with certain pages or certain ideas, I must discount the entire book. The reason is that nowhere else in my life is that approach true. When I write about having my faith encouraged by a Pearl Jam lyric I am doing the very opposite. I am pulling one line out of a song and ignoring everything else about the band Pearl Jam that does not point me toward God. When I sense the story of Jesus in the movie Man on Fire, I am ignoring the violence and torture that dominate most of the film. When I celebrate the sunset as a sign of God’s love, I ignore the devastation and heartache of a hurricane. I am not sure I am right or wrong on this idea, but it is something I was forced to think about when I read the Shack.
7. The book gives the elbow of death to seminaries and churches and WWJD.
The book does talk about the institutions and processes and systems we have tried to build up around our faith. The main character comments about his seminary and does question the church’s approach to tradition and rules. But so do I to a degree. I don’t think the book means to criticize the many people that have benefited from seminary or the beautiful things the body of Christ, as the church, can do. I think it means to tear down the negative stuff we’ve associated with God that might be of God. I will say that if I ever write about the whole What Would Jesus Do movement and get criticized, my first response is going to be, “Whoa, it’s not like I shacked it.” On page 149, the main character sarcastically says to the Jesus character, “You mean that I can’t just ask, ‘What Would Jesus Do’?” The Jesus character chuckles, “Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works out for you, if that’s the way you choose to go.” Clearly that’s just a section of a much larger conversation that you should read on your own but I did verbally say, “Dang, Jesus just leg dropped those bracelets” when I read it the first time. (And it’s not that Young is slamming traditional religion so that he can say all roads lead to Jesus. On page 182, when the Jesus character is asked that direct question, he replies, “Not at all.”)
This is so much longer than I anticipated but I felt like the subject deserved some thought. And I won’t try to stand in the middle on the book. I liked the Shack. I felt like it really challenged how I view my relationship with God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There are some really beautiful parts that were encouraging and crushing and uplifting and a million other things. I rarely read books again but this is one that I will.
That’s what I think about the ripples and conversations the Shack has helped start. And I hope we can have a new one here on this site as we wrestle with this book.
Comments
I read this pretty recently and all the things you brought up had me saying, “Yeah, that’s it!”
I am one also not to read books more than once. This one and Till We Have Faces by Lewis are the exceptions. I have read latter three times and plan to read the former again, too.
Thanks for your take on this Jon!
Miss Hannah,
Thanks for your rebuke. I genuinely appreciate people looking out for me, as default mode is certainly “jerk” when I wake up in the morning.
However, in this case, I am going to stick to my guns a bit. Mormonism as a religion (I have a bachelors degree in Religion with a focus in early American religious history, and I have studied LDS beliefs and practices extensively) can be characterized as nothing short of closing both eyes and covering your ears and repeating “I’m not listening, I’m not listening.” They refuse to talk about issues, dodging the questions when confronted intellectually or emotionally (try debating with them if you don’t believe me), so the only option I have to get through to them is to make fun of them.
That brings me to this point: a great sermon to listen to is by Mark Driscoll (who shares my predisposition for gentleness) on “does God have a sense of humor?” In it, he makes a fantastic point that the way to deal with overly religious folks (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, or whatever) is to make fun of them. It helps them to see themselves as a joke and prevents others from being tempted to follow in their ways. Mormonism is a joke. You get special underwear when you become a Mormon. Seriously.
Jesus made fun of how religious people pray. He made fun of how religious people fast. He made fun of the Pharisees and Scribes relentlessly. Because they were a joke. And they needed to know it, and repent of their foolishness.
It is not my heart to alienate other religions. It is my heart that they might see what a joke they are, and what a joke I am, and learn to laugh at themselves and me, and ultimately come to repentance. Because Jesus wasn’t joking when he said “I am THE way.”
I am frequently wrong, and I frequently offend people. But when all is said and done, I am just a signpost, pointing people to Jesus. A ridiculous, laughable, joke of a signpost.
Just a thought: While yes, God is refered to in Scripture a number of times with the pronouns "He" or "Him", God also speaks of Himself as a "…mother who longs to gather her children…." (Micah & some other prophetic writings (Amos/Hosea maybe??))
Anyway, we would be remiss if we cast something aside simply because it doesn't fit into the mold we think needs to be used. God is neither male nor female – "God created humans in His image. Male and female He created them."
Hebrew doesn't have an androgenous verb tense. So God had to be one or the other – apparently Moses picked male.
God chooses to relate to us based on the things we know – Father, Bridegroom, husband, Master, friend….
Why can't we relate to God also as a mother, which is how He is portrayed in the above passage?
Just a thought. Although, I very well could be rambling and considerably off my rocker? =)
Carrie-
I am afraid that I have to disagree with your use of C.S. Lewis to support your argument. He did say that. And I agree, that once a person is fully confronted with the person of Christ, they must either dismiss Him eternally or accept Him. However, C.S. Lewis does not present the idea that only Bible-believing, Church-going, fundamentalist Christians are going to heaven. He actually broaches a much more liberal view.
A major concept Lewis explores is the idea of “Tao.” This isn’t actually the tao of taoism. Lewis uses the word “tao” to represent the ideas of right and wrong that are ingrained in humanity. An example he uses is that while cultures may differ on the number of wives a man may have, none have advocated the taking of any woman he pleases as often as he pleases for whatever he pleases.
In “The Great Divorce” he speaks of people starting in hell and ending in heaven such that “the Blessed [those that end in heaven] will say ‘We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven,’ and the Lost [those who end in hell], ‘We were always in Hell.’ And both will speak truly.”
In “The Last Battle,” Lewis personifies many of these ideas in the Calormene Emeth. Through the course of the story, Emeth arrives in Narnia’s version of heaven. He went expecting to find Tash (the god of the Calormenes; essentially the antithesis of Aslan, the equivalent of Christ). What he found instead was Aslan. In chapter 15, he relates his conversation with Aslan to the others. “[Aslan said],’Son, thou art welcome.’ But I [Emeth] said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but a servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me….I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and non which is not vile can be done to him.’”
It is not for you to say that “No good Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim will be in heaven.” That is for God alone to decide.
Oh, one more thing Jon? Errr … explain the Kathie Lee references? (hahahah)
Just out of curiosity, why do you call Kathy Lee Gifford “KPG”? What does the “P” stand for?
“The point is that labeling something as fictional does not automatically mean that we should accept or reject the very non fictional ideas within it. Young’s characters wrestle with real things and just because they are done within the context of a novel does not mean we can’t approach them with care and consideration.”
THANK YOU. My gosh, if some people had their way, no one would ever write a review of any fictional book ever. We’d all just love and accept every work of fiction simply because it was fiction.
“The Shack” doesn’t sound like my cup of tea and I don’t plan to read it, but I appreciate your making that excellent point.
Stacy from Louisville,
Thank you for the daisies – I for one needed that tonight. We're in Day 2 of VBS, which is when kids start having being tired trouble.
I'm just curious, those who say we need to reject or discard anything that does not line up with correct theology – do you watch tv or read the newspaper? Do you listen to only music that lines up theologically or will we find some Country or R&B? I'm not trying to be mean and I hope this doesn't read that way. It's great that you're passionate for pure theology. However, vehement generalizations are never good rhetorically, especially if they are proven fale.
I don’t have time to read all the other comments people have made, but here’s mine. What you have written about this book is great. I read the book the other weekend after seeing the author being interviewed on the Today Show. I was touched to the very core of my being by the love of God this book portrays. I can’t stop thinking about it and I’m ready to read the book a second time with pen in hand. I have since watched You Tube videos of other interviews he has done and have been reading his blog. I absolutely believe he has come to know God in a way that we desperately need.
Sarah Lewie:
Thanks for your response – sincerely – though I disagree a bit in the direction you’re going -it was nice to see someone actually use Scripture to back it up.
And there are those passages in the O.T. and even Paul makes the comparison (albeit of his co-laborers and himself) in I Thess 2:7 to that of a ‘nursing mother’.
However, as you know these are comparisons, metaphors, similes and thus the authors are not saying God is a woman or anything like that. It is God’s attributes are compared to those of a mother.
Also God is also compared to a variety of things in the Bible – eagles, lights, doors, etc – the Scripture doesn’t allow for us to actually pray, “Our Eagle who art in Heaven…”. I’m not trying to be sarcastic – just trying to show where the consistency of The Shack’s thinking ends up.
“Anyway, we would be remiss if we cast something aside simply because it doesn’t fit into the mold we think needs to be used. God is neither male nor female
‘God created humans in His image. Male and female He created them.’”
The Shack doesn’t just make comparisons, but pictures the actual persons themselves of the Trinity in complete contradiction to the Word. It is not at all a matter of the author not fitting into our mold…it doesn’t fit into the mold of the whole Biblical view of the Trinity and/or Salvation period.
Not to elevate Jesus’ words over any other biblical passage, but I do think He is our example in everything – including how to think, address and refer to God the Father, Himself and the Spirit. And He doesn’t say anything about the Father being a mother.
Yes I know the book is fiction. I would add so is its teaching as well.
Churchy – It’s hard for me to believe that you would assertain from my comment that I don’t believe that the Tri-une God is sufficient to deal with a broken man’s pain. Obviously that is a gross exaggeration of my point. God is all sufficient and a Healer and a Restorer. However, your comment and Alex fear’s does make me want to ammend my point a bit. I still think that Young didn’t portray God as a woman to piss people off. I think that God was portrayed through most of the book as a woman because Mack expected God to be a man. I think the point was to totally shake Mack’s preconceptions from the get go…to start fresh. I also think the author understood that Mack’s relationship with his father would cause some unnecessary friction if God were portrayed as a man. So, “God” sidestepped it by appearing as a woman. Let me illustrate what I mean.
(Enter imaginary conversation between Mack and “God” that could have happened before “God” decided to be seen as a woman.)
Mack: “Wow! God you are just as I imagined. A man. I get it you are my father. Hey, by the way, can we talk about that cause my dad was a jerk and I don’t see how I can accurately relate to you when the thought of a father brings u all kinds of crap in me.”
God: “Oh..okay…well…I have some other stuff I’d like to talk with you about and since the father thing might get you a bit hung up…*poof*…I’m a woman. Can we move on now and come back to the dad thing later?”
Mack: “Sure…that was righteous, God….(snickers)…get it…righteous.”
P.S. Also,in my experience, as a counselor, I believe that HEALTHY broken men relate best to father figures. UNHEALTHY broken men…or men that have not really dealt with their own father issues, tend to to relate better to women.
Ok, I don’t have much to contribute here since I haven’t read the book yet, but I felt I had to drop this comment. Your timing with this post is CRAZY… I was in walmart a couple days ago looking for a certain book when I randomly saw “The shack” on the shelf. I picked it up and gave it a good look-over since I had heard about it months ago. I feel like the timing of this post is a prompt for me to read it, hmm…
William P. Young answers the question himself as to why God was portrayed as an African American woman. There are You Tube videos on his website of interviews he has done. He says that probably due to the events and bonds and losses of his own childhood, a black mother figure was the closest thing he had experienced to God’s unconditional love.
Does it really matter? Just the experience of God’s love as a trinity and toward us, his beloved creation, and the fact that we can truly trust Someone who loves us so completely, is the message of this book, and one so desperately needed.
Jon,
Thanks for your clarification! I figured that you weren’t saying it was bad to call God a woman, but I wanted to make sure. I love your blog!
To those who are so sure that Scripture never refers to God as a woman: Deuteronomy 32:18: “You neglected the Rock who begot you, and forgot the God who gave you birth.” Last time I checked, only women give birth. Isaiah 42:14: “I have kept silent for a long time, I have kept still and restrained myself. Now like a woman in labor, I will groan, I will both gasp and pant.” Isaiah 66:13: “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.”
I do not deny that the pronouns for God are exclusively male. But why deny use of maternal imagery, especially as God uses it in His own prophetic self-revelation? What are we losing in our legalistic efforts to regulate language about God? What aspects of God’s love are ignored or hidden when we refuse to see God as Mother as well as Father? If your conscience does not permit you to call God Mother, then don’t. But allow me my freedom in Christ, please.
As for C.S. Lewis, “thepianist86″ has answered that excellently.
Hey Jon and Readers of This Outstanding Blog,
This is a great post, and topic. It's one we have to wrestle with, and I'm happy there's a place that we can all engage and wrestle with ideas like those presented in The Shack.
We need to read people we disagree with, or even think we might disagree with. Let's find the meat and spit out the bones.
I have a radio show, which I'd like to have you on Jon. We're on Sirius Satellite radio on Sunday nights 9:00 EST Channel 161. I've had Paul Young on the show twice, and I'd encourage all of you to listen to the interview with Paul about this book.
Here's a link to that archived broadcast: http://www.talprincelive.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=41919&PID=563341
There's also some great interviews with him at http://www.drewmarshall.ca
As a counseling pastor, I can say that this has been tremendously healing in the lives of those that have been through deep pain. Paul was sexually abused for years starting at age 4, and grew up a missionary kid in New Guinea. Get him in his context, and the book takes on some new angles.
I'm not joking, Jon – we'd love to have you on the show! It would be fun!
Amanda,
My apologies for not clarifying that the only part of that post that was specifically intended for you was the question:
“I’m just curious if you or anyone else agrees with this quote?”
Everything after that question was for the general public.
I meant no personal ‘attack’.
“Also,in my experience, as a counselor, I believe that HEALTHY broken men relate best to father figures. UNHEALTHY broken men…or men that have not really dealt with their own father issues, tend to to relate better to women.”
I agree with the above statement – however, wouldn’t you say that its imperative for the ‘unhealthy broken man’ to address his past with his father so as to become the ‘healthy broken man’?
I’m not sure I can count the number of testimonies of men who struggle with homosexuality that trace their own roots to the ‘absent dad’ – just wondering if this is imperative in your mind.
Thanks for your time and patience with me.
Wow…I was just going to leave a comment saying that I genuinely appreciated your thoughts on the book. I read it on the recommendation of a woman who is like a spiritual mother to me–she desires to honor God in every aspect of her life. I’m amazed at how worked up people are getting about this book. I enjoyed reading it and it did challenge me to evaluate some of my views. However, with anything that challenges my thinking, I first look back to the ultimate truth before changing anything. I really appreciate Young’s book and intend to reread the book soon.
Elaine,
There are some of us that do not deny the Scripture’s use of maternal imagery.
I still say there is no license to go from comparing an attribute of God (love, care, etc) to a mother’s to saying God is Woman.(just as it it wrong to say He is a man!!)
No one ever, ever when talking TO God addresses Him as “Mother”. “Father”??….uhmm obviously yes and I know you agree with this.
“What are we losing in our legalistic efforts to regulate language about God? What aspects of God’s love are ignored or hidden when we refuse to see God as Mother as well as Father?”
What one is loosing is biblical ground to do so. He is not both Mother and Father. His attribute are LIKE a mother’s, but He is the “Father”.
If Jesus was (and He was/is) our example in everything – than that includes how we look at the Trinity. He never addresses the Father as ‘Mother’. Not once. I’m not sure we actually do have freedom in Christ to “call God a woman”.
To summarize: making comparisons of God’s attributes to a woman are different from saying “yeah God is a woman”. And yet to deny that the Bible compares God’s attributes to a Mother is also unbiblical and harmful.
thepianist86- I’m sorry but I must disagree with you here. C.S Lewis never advocated Taoism. He did however try explain about people who have NEVER heard of Christ and die, would they get to heaven. That IS up to God. And your take of The Great Divorce confused me. I always though the book was trying to explain why people go to hell. And in the end, C.S. Lewis tries to say that people would actually choose hell over heaven because of their own selfishness, etc. But that’s not the point of this thread. When a Buddist or Hindu is confronted with the truth of Christ, they DO have a choice as I think you stated. And no good intentions or actions will get them to heaven. And I think you are getting into stereotypes when you use “fundamentalist” too. Why do people use that word as a weapon anyway? Oh well. I simply said what the Bible says. John 14:6 states clearly that Jesus IS the only way. I didn’t say it, C.S. Lewis didn’t say it, our Savior said it. I simply used the quote of C.S. Lewis not to support who gets to heaven or not. I used it to support the fact that if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God then we have to assume that the words He said were true or else He was crazy cuz His claims were bold. John 14:6 is Jesus making a claim about Himself. It wasn’t Paul’s claim or Moses’ claim or anyone else’s. It was Christ’s. So when you say that all those who believe in Buddha or Allah or Vishnu go to heaven, you are in a sense calling the claims Christ made about Himself are untrue. Thus calling Him a liar. I don’t judge who goes to heaven, Christ did. And He CLEARLY states He’s the only way. So I’m not judging when I say those people won’t go to heaven, I’m just stating what Christ claimed about Himself.
I’m a little late in the game responding, but I loved The Shack. It takes some getting over yourself to go there and get past a lot of the stuff that’s been ingrained in us to get to the main message, but, it’s worth it
Carrie, I’d suggest re-reading the post you’re objecting to. I don’t think anyone said Lewis advocated Taoism and in fact that post says just the opposite. But in The Abolition of Man Lewis argues for Natural Law, or “the standard of objective value” which he believes all people share an awareness of, regardless of time or culture. Lewis chose to use a non-western word (“tao” or “the tao”) to describe this sense of objective value or natural law.
Another Lewis quote, this one from “Mere Christianity”:
“We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.”
churchy – i ABSOLUTELY believe it is imperative for broken men to deal with their struggles with their dad in order to become healthy. That is certainly what is necessary and what is best. I was just saying that I think that is why, initially God is portrayed as a woman(before mack has dealt with anything), and even more so why God is later portrayed as a man.
The reality is that God could choose to do whatever he wanted if he chose to met with us face to face. This is one man’s opinion as to what he felt like could happen. I wouldn’t have necessarily written it this way, but I commented on it mainly to say why I am not offended by it. When I read it, I felt like, “Yeah, that jives with a God who meets us where we are….who intimately knows our needs and who goes to great, unconventional lengths to meet those needs.”
Blessings, churchy. It’s fun to spar a little and dig a little deeper, amen?!?
i cant freaking believe i agree with KLG….
Karl- Thanks for the correction. I re-read the post and your are correct I misread that part about Taoism BIG time. No wonder I was so confused
My sincere apologies to thepianist86. It takes a lot of concentration to discuss the words of a brilliant man like C.S. Lewis and apparently I was out to lunch when I read that part of your post 
I had no intention of creating a discussion on the interpretation of C.S. Lewis quotes when I borrowed from him 
I was simply using the quote to support the fact that Christ claims He is the only way in John 14:6. So, regardless of what I say, you say, or C.S. Lewis says, that claim Christ makes about Himself is true. You can’t say you believe who Christ is and then deny what He claimed about Himself being the only way. Hey man, I just believe Christ is who He says He is. He claims to be the only way and so I have to take Christ at His word or my faith isn’t worth much is it? That’s not judgemental, it’s just taking Christ at His word.
Amanda,
Thanks for your response…quite the breath of fresh air actually! Sparring is fun and necessary! I truely believe that “truth becomes clear through conflict” – and not around it.
And I also agree God takes us where someone is. However let me clarify what I mean.
He meats the sinner who repents and He changes them into a child of his. There are no buhddist, islsamic or mormon children of God. There are only EX-buhddists, islamic, mormon, etc. children of God.
I Cor 6:9-11
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Perhaps this is your understanding as well, I’m not sure. However, the biblical understanding of “God taking us as we are” seems to be different than what is written in The Shack.
God absolutely wants to and has to change us to become a child of God. The teachings of other religions do not compliment the Scriptures, they are in contradiction.
After all this time, the Church in America is being asked that very question, “Indeed, has God said…?” Indeed Satan is still that crafty serpent.
I hope the author does clarify his view on Salvation and the Trinity. I think he owes to his readers and maybe even his children.
I am so intrigued by this discussion. I read The Shack at my kids’ recommendation and fell in love with the premise of Young’s storyline. No one seems to have grabbed onto the idea that Mack calls the Father “Papa.” In talks with friends to whom I gave the book for Easter, we discussed the idea that GOD is so “other,” as the concept Young was attempting to convey, and not demasculanizing the Godhead.
Churchy – I’m not sure we are really talking about the same things anymore. I’ve never really talked about Islam or Mormonismn, etc. Regardless, I’m not sure that we wouldn’t be, at least for the most part, on the same page about all of that stuff.
As a side note, right after I read the book, I went to the authors website..the name of it escapes me now but I am sure you can google it…to see if he did explain his thoughts on salvation. He acknowledged that he was getting quite a bit of feedback stating that he was a universalist and it really seemed to sadden him. He did a good job of clarifying his thoughts on salvation and of very clearly stating that Jesus is the ONLY way, the ONLY truth, and the ONLY life. I was glad he did.
I don’t like critisizing books too much, because i know just how hard it is to write one, but i had some major problems with The Shack. I thought that overall, the book was pretty shallow. also i thought that the god character was a big mess-up. I think at the most basic level it cut God short, and on a higher level, totally reinvented him. If this was a purely secular book, it wouldn’t have bothered me, but since the book is christian, it disturbs me that this is how the author sees God. I know people will argue that the author doesn’t really see God that way, but every author writes what they believe, even if it is by accident.
I had not heard of the shack until you mentioned it and then saw the author was speaking at catalyst conference (my wife and I can’t go this year-we are both depressed)So I picked it up at Sam’s club.
I really like things that make me think and this madwe me think. I will probably read it again with a more “theological eye” but it really made me think. As of not I do not think you can go this is heresy. As a matter of fact, It could be good for people who are struggling with who God is.
It does have the potential to be spiritually dangerous and in some ways that may not be a bad thing.
I am just not sure what to do with it yet, the biggest reason is a girl from our church was abducted from the county fair and brutally murdered about 5 years ago. So the book hits some nerves that are still pretty raw here. I actually liked the Black woman thing in God saying you weren’t ready for a father yet. I know people where God as father is not comforting because its not a good image for them. But when it was time that’s who He was.
But the recommendation from Kathy Lee almost made me never read it!!
Ok I did not get all roads lead to God,out of the statement. Just that Jesus has done all He can. Maybe I’ll look hard next time. Secondly I am not sure what concept of the trinity was blasphemous. Because let’s face it non of us “get” the trinity. If anything was a pretty good allegory for the trinity.
We need a little more of #6 in all areas of life as Christians.
And does KLG need her own post?
I had the bizarre experience to buy this book as an audio download, with no prior knowledge of it AT ALL — expecting a thriller/horror novel. The only mention the publisher’s synopsis makes of it’s theological content is “…a suspicious note, apparently from God…”. In a conventional thriller this “suspicious” and “apparently” divine note would turn out to be not only bogus, but very sinister…
I bailed about when the Asian woman was collecting tears off his clothes. This was a bit like expecting to taking a sip of water and getting beer instead. Bleh.
Now I’m combing the web looking for a full, spoiler-filled synopsis. I’m slightly interested in how it ends, but not nearly curious enough to sit through the protagonists’ ‘life changing’ experience.
Ok, so i hope that no one will take offense to this, ’cause that’s not my goal at all. What you see below is the conviction taking place in My heart.
While skimming over the responses listed here, I was suddenly struck by the fact that we (me too here) have so much to say about this novel. Yet a post about a chapter in the bible would not garner nearly the amount of response.
It’s amazing that a fictional work of man can cause such a stir in our culture, (or sub-culture),but the perfect Word of God does not.
foolishj
Let’s see…
1. The Prayer of Jabez
2. The Purpose Driven Life
3. The Shack…
It never ends.
“I thought that overall, the book was pretty shallow. also i thought that the god character was a big mess-up. I think at the most basic level it cut God short, and on a higher level, totally reinvented him.”
Amen brother/sister/non-gendered-sibling.
I read the book because my Bible study group wanted to talk about it this year. I was expecting to either find it emotionally challenging and insightful, or blaphemous and dangerous.
I found it neither.
I feel that the author could have done a lot more with the premise. He attempted to tell us how the protagonist felt, instead of showing us. He created emotions without laying out a basis or reason for them. And I felt each ‘contact’ was rushed, as if each member of the trinity had to have their say and get off stage as quickly as possible before anyone realised they weren’t saying anything.
Maybe the ideas didn’t seem too revolutionary because I already think about God that way, or maybe I am just too stupid to understand them, but I got nothing from this book.
Sorry.
I didn't care for The Shack for one simple reason that the poor author could have done nothing about, really.
When I read it, I missed God.
Now, granted when you write a book about a man who goes and talks with God, you have the difficult challenge of having to actually write with God's voice. And we are… not God. We cannot say with certainty how God speaks, we can only say how he speaks to *us*.
The book was probably great as a portrayal of the way God speaks to those authors. But when I read it, I spent the whole time thinking, "Awww. I miss God." I missed hearing his voice as I have heard him speak to me. When he speaks to us, he says them in ways we will connect to. To me, he speaks in poetry and song. To others, he gives practical answers to problems. He can certainly do both… but he meets the need where it is (like I know a lot of practical answers, but I need the motivation to get started).
Part of the beauty of Christianity is, of course, that God *does* speak to us all differently, and only Scripture manages to capture every way God speaks to us. So… not necessarily a fault of the authors. Almost more a celebration of the fact that it is reaching people who would never have responded to my version of the tale, or yours, or Frank Peretti's, or Donald Miller's (although who doesn't respond to Donald Miller's stories?).
That book was so emotionally impacting. I read it at camp with several other people who had already read it and when I did things like yell at the book or cry, they would laugh because they knew what parts i had gotten to. Crazy book. Definitely not totally theologically sound. But good, nonetheless.