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



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

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...


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

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


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 20, 2009)

I have a review of the Shack here.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> 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?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 20, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


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



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


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 20, 2009)

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.



PeaceMaker said:


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


----------



## jonmo (Apr 20, 2009)

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).


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## baron (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 20, 2009)

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?


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 20, 2009)

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


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is autobiographical for William Young...
> ...



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... ?


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

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-----



Theoretical said:


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



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.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> > PeaceMaker said:
> ...


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.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> 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.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 20, 2009)

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


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> *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.


----------



## Theognome (Apr 20, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



*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


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 20, 2009)

Theognome said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 20, 2009)

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


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > *Must you read an entire book before deciding to recommend people not read it? *
> ...



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.


----------



## christiana (Apr 20, 2009)

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?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

christiana said:


> 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.


----------



## Staphlobob (Apr 20, 2009)

christiana said:


> 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 p0rnography 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?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 20, 2009)

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

Proverbs 18:13


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 20, 2009)

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

I think there's a pretty big difference between condemning p0rnography 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.


----------



## ServantofGod (Apr 20, 2009)

Staphlobob said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 20, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > christiana said:
> ...



I'm sneaky like that.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 20, 2009)

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


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 20, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> I have never even heard of this book....
> 
> I think there's a pretty big difference between condemning p0rnography 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 p0rnography, 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.


----------



## christiana (Apr 20, 2009)

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.


----------



## Jon 316 (Apr 20, 2009)

[video=youtube;pK65Jfny70Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y[/video]


----------



## CNJ (Apr 20, 2009)

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_.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 20, 2009)

At the end of the book, after his story is finished, the author has a seperate article entitled: "The Story Behind the Shack." In this article he claims that he, along with his friends, spent 16 months "...recrafting the conversations to eliminate questionable theology..." (page 262).

Having finished the book this afternoon, and after reading this, I can only conclude that 16 months was not long enough.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

christiana said:


> 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.



Tim Challies read the book himself.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 20, 2009)

Tim, when you do finish reading it, I would be very interested to know your thoughts.  I did look it up on amazon, and read some reviews, but it was difficult to glean much from those. I probably won't read it myself -too little time - but I am curious about its content and implications.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

Kathleen, I am think of posting my thoughts about the book on my blog. I'll PM you and possibly post on this thread once I get the first one up and running.

My recommendations to you, however, will be the same as I would recommend to my own congregation: don't waste your time on such garbage. There's plenty of good stuff out there that gets neglected by Christians. Pick up a Puritan Paperback and read that!


----------



## mgeoffriau (Apr 20, 2009)

I met William Young a few days ago. I heard, out of his own mouth, that he considers his book to be "orthodox" (he declined to explain what he meant by that word) and that he felt it was valuable to explain the relational aspects of the Trinity in particular.

When the question was raised to him how he responds to those within the Church that have criticized his book or his theology, he responded (roughly paraphrasing) that he never intended his book to be authoritative (thank goodness!) nor a theological manual, but simply another perspective and part of the "conversation".


----------



## CNJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Mark, in my opinion "Conversation" is a very emergent phrase for you do your faith your own way, not considering propositional truth. Those in the emergent movement, and Paul Williams seems to be, reject doctrine altogether. Their story is the truth. 

Gary Zustiak in an article about the emergent movement points out “There is a heavy emphasis upon narrative, or story, as the chief means of communicating the message of God over doctrine or exegetical approaches.” Christian Standard 

D. A. Carson in Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church writes, "Post-moderns [ name adopted for many in movement] are likely to be happy with personal narratives—i.e., with individuals telling their own stories and explaining how they view things. They are likely to be suspicious of metanarrative—i.e., of a big story that claims to explain all of life, or that claims to be true for everyone." 

The Shack fits right in with this trend, don't you think!


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 21, 2009)

CNJ said:


> The Shack fits right in with this trend, don't you think!



Certainly does, which explains its popularity among those who also liked "Blue Like Jazz" and other such tripe. The hard thing is that this kind of 'personal take' on theology is very attractive not just to those who consciously identify themselves as postmoderns, but it also seems to be attracting a following among those who truly are postmodern in their thinking, but who don't know that they are, or if confronted with the fact, don't think that they are following the ideals of postmodern thought. It's this second category of people that form a large segment of many of our churches, I fear.


----------



## calgal (Apr 21, 2009)

When we read Velvet Elvis (it was Rob Bell's ego trip in all honesty and a lot of "look how COOL I am!) it was a lot of babble and self promotion and a poorly written novella. Unfortunately, to Mr. Bell it is as good as Grudem. Now if we are asked, we can say we read the book, point to areas we disagree with and explain why rather than retreat to what Dr. Michael Horton calls "the holy huddle" while howling "heresy! That is Evil" with no idea why the book is evil. And the latter approach not only shuts off discussion but it is a really poor witness.


----------



## christiana (Apr 21, 2009)

How does Phil 4:8 apply: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

If one knows quite well the book they plan to read is not God honoring and deliberately reads it anyway is this sin or not?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 21, 2009)

christiana said:


> How does Phil 4:8 apply: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
> 
> If one knows quite well the book they plan to read is not God honoring and deliberately reads it anyway is this sin or not?



The answer is not so simple as "yes" or "no". Sorry.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2009)

Christiana I think it is for the same reason one would, for instance, sit on a jury or study to become a lawyer or a judge, when details of crimes and sins will be the order of business. In a sinful and fallen world, sometimes delighting in truth and virtue and justice takes the form of having to deal with knowledge of very unlovely things. 

Certainly I hope no one would push for everyone to read the book; but it's good that we have some 'juries' and 'lawyers' and 'judges' to deal with the world's literary and theological crimes, and bring the errors to light in the interests of truth and beauty and justice!


----------



## jlynn (Apr 21, 2009)

I haven't read this book, but it has come highly recommended to me by an unbelieving friend. I was wondering what it was about and think that I made the right decision to pass on reading it.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 21, 2009)

I landed up getting in a brief exchange about "The Shack" with one of my wife's relatives recently. It wasn't the first time. People absolutely love this book.

Two of the most frequent response I get are:

1) But, it's fiction!
2) But, do you know this man's history?
3) Have you read it?

I hate number one. Any book that discusses God, His essence (probably not the right word) and his character is theology, regardless of whether it is presented to the reader as non-fiction, a novel, or poetry. The fact that it is fiction makes it more dangerous, since more people will read a well-marketed book sitting in Walmart (beside Joel Olsteen's latest best seller)than any explicitly theological and serious book.

Yes, the author had a tragic history. That might make one sympathetic to the man, and understand why he may have fell into error, but that doesn't excuse the error itself. 

Number three is so often repeated, that I am going to read it. I've read enough reviews to know what I'm going to find, and I would rather not waste my time, but so many of the people I talk to consider an answer of "no" to number three to be the end of the conversation. Being able to answer "yes" to whether I've actually read the book will make refuting it that much easier.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 21, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Kathleen, I am think of posting my thoughts about the book on my blog. I'll PM you and possibly post on this thread once I get the first one up and running.
> 
> My recommendations to you, however, will be the same as I would recommend to my own congregation: don't waste your time on such garbage. There's plenty of good stuff out there that gets neglected by Christians. Pick up a Puritan Paperback and read that!


Add me to that PM if you would, especially since it's so prominent a book.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 21, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kathleen, I am think of posting my thoughts about the book on my blog. I'll PM you and possibly post on this thread once I get the first one up and running.
> ...



Will do!


----------



## christiana (Apr 21, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Christiana I think it is for the same reason one would, for instance, sit on a jury or study to become a lawyer or a judge, when details of crimes and sins will be the order of business. In a sinful and fallen world, sometimes delighting in truth and virtue and justice takes the form of having to deal with knowledge of very unlovely things.
> 
> Certainly I hope no one would push for everyone to read the book; but it's good that we have some 'juries' and 'lawyers' and 'judges' to deal with the world's literary and theological crimes, and bring the errors to light in the interests of truth and beauty and justice!



Thanks so much Heidi, for that thought provoking response!
Blessings!


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2009)

christiana said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Christiana I think it is for the same reason one would, for instance, sit on a jury or study to become a lawyer or a judge, when details of crimes and sins will be the order of business. In a sinful and fallen world, sometimes delighting in truth and virtue and justice takes the form of having to deal with knowledge of very unlovely things.
> ...



I struggle with the same sort of questions often, as well.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 22, 2009)

I have a preliminary post concerning _The Shack_ posted on my blog here. This is not a review (I am waiting until I finish the book), but I comment on the feminine aspects of the book a bit.

The real purpose of the post, however, is to recommend to you Mary Kassian's excellent review of the book, found here.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 22, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


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



THE SHACK IS NOT TO BE USED AS A DIURETIC, OR AN EMETIC..READ THE SHACK WARNING LABEL:


DOSAGE: take two Shacks every six hours for overly rigid orthodoxy. 

SIDE EFFECTS: This Shack may cause joint pain, nausea, headache, or shortness of breath. You may also experience muscle aches, rapid heartbeat, and ringing in the ears. If you feel faint, call your doctor. Do not consume alcohol while taking this pill; likewise, avoid red meat, shellfish, and vegetables. O.K. foods: flounder. Under no circumstances eat yak. Men can expect painful urination. Projectile vomiting is common in thirty per cent of users—sorry, fifty per cent. If you undergo disorienting nausea accompanied by migraine and raspy breathing, double the dosage. Leg cramps are to be expected; one knee-buckler per day is normal. Bowel movements may become frequent—in fact, every ten minutes. If bowel movements become greater than twelve per hour, consult your doctor, or any doctor, or just anyone who will speak to you. You may find yourself becoming lost or vague; this would be a good time to write a screenplay. Do not pilot a plane, unless you are among the ten per cent of users who experience "spontaneous test-pilot knowledge." If your hair begins to smell like burning tires, move away from any buildings or populated areas, and apply tincture of iodine to the head until you no longer hear what could be taken for a "countdown." May cause stigmata in Mexicans. If a fungus starts to grow between your eyebrows, call the Guinness Book of World Records. May induce a tendency to compulsively repeat the phrase "no can do." This drug may cause visions of the Virgin Mary to appear in treetops. If this happens, open a souvenir shop. There may be an overwhelming impulse to shout out during a Catholic Mass, "I'm gonna wop you wid da ugly stick!" You may feel a powerful sense of impending doom; this is because you are about to die. Do not take this product if you are uneasy with lockjaw. Do not be near a ringing telephone that works at 900 MHz or you will be very dead, very fast. We are- assuming you have had chicken pox. You also may experience a growing dissatisfaction with life along with a deep sense of melancholy—join the club! Do not be concerned if you arouse a few ticks from a Geiger counter. You might want to get a one-month trial subscription to Extreme Fidgeting. The hook shape of the pill will often cause it to become caught in the larynx. To remove, jam a finger down your throat while a friend holds your nose to prevent the pill from lodging in a nasal passage. Then throw yourself stomach first on the back portion of a chair. The expulsion of air should eject the pill out of the mouth, unless it goes into a sinus cavity, or the brain. 

WARNING: This drug may shorten your intestines by twenty-one feet. Has been known to cause birth defects in the user retroactively. Passing in front of TV may cause the screen to move. Women often feel a loss of libido, including a two-octave lowering of the voice, an increase in ankle hair, and perhaps the lowering of a testicle. Discontinue use immediately if you feel that your teeth are receiving radio broadcasts. You may experience "lumpy back" syndrome, but we are actively seeking a cure. Bloated fingertips on the heart-side hand are common. When finished with the dosage, be sure to allow plenty of "quiet time" in order to retrain the eye to move off stationary objects. Flotation devices at sea will become pointless, as the user of this drug will develop a stone-like body density; therefore, if thrown overboard, contact your doctor. (This product may contain one or more of the following: bungee cord, plankton, rubber, crack cocaine, pork bladders, aromatic oils, gunpowder, corn husk, glue, bee pollen, dung, English muffin, poached eggs, ham, Hollandaise sauce, crushed saxophone reeds.) Sensations of levitation are illusory, as is the sensation of having a "phantom" third arm. User may experience certain inversions of language. Acceptable: "Hi, are how you?" Unacceptable: "The rain in Sprain slays blainly on the phsssst." Twenty minutes after taking the pills, you will feel an insatiable craving to take another dose. AVOID THIS WITH ALL YOUR POWER. It is advisable to have a friend handcuff you to a large kitchen appliance, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WILL NOT FIT THROUGH THE DOORWAY TO WHERE THE PILLS ARE. You should also be out of reach of any weapon-like utensil with which you could threaten friends or family, who should also be briefed to not give you the pills, no matter how much you sweet-talk them.


----------

