The Shack

[Fez]

Oh for goodness sake people, get over it and read it or don't read it. It's a work of fiction for goodness sake. Hey I read Stephen King, and do I believe that a clown is going to grab someone and drag them into a drain? Of course not!

Too many of us read too many "christian" books searching for something we can always find in the bible. I read fiction for fun, and the bible in faith. And I guess thats good enough for me.

[alex73]

Oh for goodness sake people, get over it and read it or don't read it. It's a work of fiction for goodness sake. Hey I read Stephen King, and do I believe that a clown is going to grab someone and drag them into a drain? Of course not!

Too many of us read too many "christian" books searching for something we can always find in the bible. I read fiction for fun, and the bible in faith. And I guess thats good enough for me.

><> ><> Oh!!! yess

[BlindSeeker]

Oh for goodness sake people, get over it and read it or don't read it. It's a work of fiction for goodness sake. Hey I read Stephen King, and do I believe that a clown is going to grab someone and drag them into a drain? Of course not!

Too many of us read too many "christian" books searching for something we can always find in the bible. I read fiction for fun, and the bible in faith. And I guess thats good enough for me.

><> ><> Oh!!! yess

"Come on Eve, look at it, it's only a fruit! What harm could there be? . . . "

You say only fiction . . . so probably was the thought of the idol maker as he carved figures from wood or stone. But what are they? Fictitious characters that represent false gods.

Here you have a fictitious work creating a non-biblical image of the trinity, and assigning personality and traits to them . . . "for goodness sake people, get over it?"

Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Ps 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence;

thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself

: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

Any fictitious work of man depicting God in a non-biblical fashion is a reduction of His glory.

[artsylady]

I read it months ago and some of the Biblical principles articulated in the fiction novel have resounded with me ever since. I think although it may be 100 percent right, it's not too far off and seems to have affected many in a positive way.

[JCISGD]

IMO and my opinion only, The exclamation "for goodness sake" is an emotional outburst designed to shout down another, it is also saying for sake of goodness which is a form of swearing.

We do not call on goodness but on the living God, be sure that God hears every exclamation. Some down grade their swearing to words like "friggs sake" etc, but its swearing in the heart all the same.

Others have the right atleast to believe it only a work of fiction, but not the right to tell others not to believe optherwise and say so. Trying to imply rediculousness is improper in open discussion i think.

I would ask also, do you think God is ok with the subtle erroding of truth by suggestion, comedy and fiction?

I maintain NO. He owns the universes and is not an absentee landlord, but is a just governor of His kingdom who does not allow attacks on it, His character or Himself.

[desmalia]

Sorry I'm entering this thread late, I'm new.

i have not read it, and i am leary of it. not because of what others have said about it, but because of actual quotes from it. i realize that taking a sentence out of context can distort what is being said, but some of the quotes are a bit difficult to swallow. and i don't understand when people say it is fiction, but it can help you see God in a different light. do you pick and choose which parts about God you want to believe according to this fictional book?

Again and again I've heard from friends and read on forums that "oh it's just fiction!" and then in the very next breath went on and on about how it has changed their lives and affected their theology, their very understanding of God's nature. So... is it just fiction? The proponents and defenders of it themselves admit it's a lot more powerful (for good or for bad) than that.

The evident implication by some is that those of us who enjoyed the book and got something positive from it are buying into subtle heretical doctrines that are leeching away at our spirits, and that this is symptomatic of the state the Church finds itself in during these 'late' times.

I think it is a shame that for some there is not the discernment to see that although this fictional book was never an attempt at doctrinal exactitude, it certainly wasn't a springboard to introduce some sort of watered down gospel or heretical teachings, but rather a book of emotional healing and a positive interactive relationship that flows from the authors attempt at depicting the unity of the Godhead into the heart and mind of the reader....and on this basis it works extremely well.

I enjoyed EricH's synopsis...it was positive and realistic without any of the high-pitched spiritual scare-mongering that positively insists on seeing the bogey man lurking behind every tree.

In response to the bolded part, in fact the author wrote this story in order to try and teach his children doctrine. He hadn't intended to have it published for mass consumption initially. But yes it was meant to explain doctrine.

WELL SAID Blindseeker! I know enough about the author to not want to pick up any novel written by him. Young is one to embrace the idea of "Christian Universalism" and has defended this view on several occasions. He disavows "general universalism", but he has affirmed his hope that all will be reconciled to God either this side of death or after death.

From the interviews I've seen of this fellow, he certainly is a universalist. That's an extremely serious heresy that has crept into the church.

As for those who attempted to compare The Shack to Pilgrim's Progress, please remember you're comparing a postmodernist non-Biblical piece of fiction to a thoughtful allegory written by a gifted preacher of God who spent years imprisoned for sharing the Gospel message. Apples and oranges.

If there are any who are interested in The Shack, here is an even-handed detailed evaluation of it. It should give you all you need to know to decide if it's worth your time. http://www.challies.com/archives/book-revi...iam-p-young.php

I have no problem with reading other things than just the Bible. In fact I quite enjoy reading a variety of authors. But as God's people it is prudent that we carefully discern what we are willing to expose ourselves to (in books, media, etc.). Yes, you can find at least a little truth in just about anything. That doesn't mean it's worth our time or that we're immune to the subtle deceptions also there. You want to know God better, relate to Him better? I recommend coming to Him on His terms, through His word, guided by His spirit, in obedience to Him. The Bible is the only sure written thing we've got. When in doubt, go THERE.

Edited September 12, 2009 by desmalia

[artsylady]

Hi. Sorry it is taking me so long to respond. Very busy lately.

In regards to the book being 'just fiction', so was Pilgrim's Progress and it affected a few generations for the positive.

In regards to the review, the reviewers first criticism of Biblical concept begins with the Trinity and how it is portrayed. Discuscusions regarding the trinity are age-old. I don't think any theologians or pastors can fully understand the Trinity and people are going to continue to give opinion until the end of time.

Secondly, the reviewer seems to think that the book gives man with free will more power over God's will. I really don't believe this is the case with the book and wish I had a copy to show some more references. The story in the book is that a man's daughter was killed by a serial killer and finally gains acceptance to that.

This is the reviewers take.

Young

[Botz]

Sorry I'm entering this thread late, I'm new.

The evident implication by some is that those of us who enjoyed the book and got something positive from it are buying into subtle heretical doctrines that are leeching away at our spirits, and that this is symptomatic of the state the Church finds itself in during these 'late' times.

I think it is a shame that for some there is not the discernment to see that although this fictional book was never an attempt at doctrinal exactitude, it certainly wasn't a springboard to introduce some sort of watered down gospel or heretical teachings, but rather a book of emotional healing and a positive interactive relationship that flows from the authors attempt at depicting the unity of the Godhead into the heart and mind of the reader....and on this basis it works extremely well.

I enjoyed EricH's synopsis...it was positive and realistic without any of the high-pitched spiritual scare-mongering that positively insists on seeing the bogey man lurking behind every tree.

In response to the bolded part, in fact the author wrote this story in order to try and teach his children doctrine. He hadn't intended to have it published for mass consumption initially. But yes it was meant to explain doctrine.

Hello Desmalia....I think you are missing my point....great that he used it to teach his kids doctrine, but he is not going into theological exergesis...he is pitching it at a general level, for a broad picture. Young's detractors have generally attacked his novel as if he had translated the Scriptures from the original text, and trying to pull him up for the minutest hint of a fault when he seems to fall short....I can imagine how the L-rd must have felt when His enemies followed Him and listened to all He said, just waiting to trip Him up.

This guy is just a man...he might be wrong/incomplete on a few points...but nothing I read led me to understand he was somehow trying to use this book to decieve many and lead them away from G-d...quite the opposite.

ArtsLady has articulated more of what I feel.

I don't think he has ever admitted to being a Universalist of any description....and if he has, I did not find this doctrine touched upon or promoted in his book.

I liked the authors perspective, I liked his imagination, I liked his humanity and warmth, above all I liked the way he demonstrated the love, forgiveness and accessibility of G-d to all of us, without the bondage of many religious mis-conceptions....I felt he treated an extremely difficult subject with honesty and compassion.

If people have mis-givings about the book, then don't read it...if you buy it and feel after a few pages that the Holy Spirit is leading you to close the book and not read it...then do what you believe is right. If you have read numerous negative reports...then it is highly unlikely you will even want to read it.

But I read it and G-d encouraged and lifted me through it.

[artsylady]

I don't think he has ever admitted to being a Universalist of any description....and if he has, I did not find this doctrine touched upon or promoted in his book.

I agree. And that is quite an accusation, isn't it?

I liked the authors perspective, I liked his imagination, I liked his humanity and warmth, above all I liked the way he demonstrated the love, forgiveness and accessibility of G-d to all of us, without the bondage of many religious mis-conceptions....I felt he treated an extremely difficult subject with honesty and compassion.

Me too.

But I read it and G-d encouraged and lifted me through it.

Me too again. It didn't change anything drastically for me personally, just enhanced what I knew to be true.

[-michael-]

But I read it and G-d encouraged and lifted me through it.

Botz, I ma curious as to what you got out of this book?