# Tim Keller on "The Shack"



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 9, 2010)

Interesting review. He is highly critical of the book, but he takes a slightly different approach than other reviews...

The Shack – Impressions – The Gospel Coalition Blog


----------



## Michael Doyle (Feb 9, 2010)

I found his review irenic and fair. I am not quite as charitable as Dr Keller, perhaps I can learn from that.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 9, 2010)

It is a good review, although I would mildly disagree with some of his positive assertions about the book (for example, Young is very much putting forth a "judging God" view in the book). But Keller is very gracious (as always), and the review is bound to make a better impact than a bomb thrower would.

The Shack is more indicative of modern evangelical misunderstandings about who God is. In other words, it is merely a reflection of what many think about God and how they put their own misunderstandings in place of biblical revelation. How much is the modern church to blame for this (for example, not working through a theology of grief and lament from Scripture, trusting in secular psychology to solve woes, a gross unfamiliarity with the complex God of Scripture -- as Keller points to -- etc.)?


----------



## KMK (Feb 9, 2010)

Awesome review! He put into eloquent words exactly what I have been trying to say for months but simply don't have the skill. The review reminded me of why he is Tim Keller and I am just me.


----------



## Andres (Feb 9, 2010)

I personally think The Shack violates the 2nd commandment, as it encourages people to perceive God as something/someone He is not.


----------



## Montanablue (Feb 9, 2010)

Also, this isn't really a formal "review" but just his impressions of the book. I actually found it really helpful - I knew that I had issues with the Shack, but it was hard for me to articulate them. His write up helped clarify my thoughts on the book.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Feb 9, 2010)

Andres said:


> I personally think The Shack violates the 2nd commandment, as it encourages people to perceive God as something/someone He is not.


 
I do agree with this indeed but also find it refreshing, as Tim says, not to be a bomb thrower which I often am


----------



## Michael Doyle (Feb 9, 2010)

I am sure that would be much more succinct.


----------



## tt1106 (Feb 9, 2010)

I got depressed reading the comments on the Blog. How quickly we forget that God is also Holy, Holy, Holy. 
I don't know why so many people assume that you cannot have a close personal relationship with the creator, if you have a healthy, fear, respect, reverence and awe of him.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 9, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I'd like to see a review from John Knox on _The Shack_.


 
If this had been written in the 16th century, I think church discipline would have long since solved the problem.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 9, 2010)

Good points by Dr. Keller. But WOW would you look at those comments. This one by "Susie" really takes the cake:



> Lastly, I have read the Bible, don’t you think that after Jesus’ death we should just make the Old Testament an nice story but unapplicable?


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 9, 2010)

I concur with Austin. Some of those comments seriously made me angry. I really didn't expect those types of characters to be on The Gospel Coalition's website, although perhaps they were brought there by a search engine or something.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 9, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> I concur with Austin. Some of those comments seriously made me angry. I really didn't expect those types of characters to be on The Gospel Coalition's website, although perhaps they were brought there by a search engine or something.


 
It always amazes me that in arguments like the one going on in the comments, it's always the people arguing that God is not wrathful, only loving, who are the most vicious attackers, and yet they claim their opponents are self-righteous and cruel. The "It's all about love" people are absolutely spewing hatred in those comments.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 9, 2010)

austinww said:


> It always amazes me that in arguments like the one going on in the comments, it's always the people arguing that God is not wrathful, only loving, who are the most vicious attackers, and yet they claim their opponents are self-righteous and cruel. The "It's all about love" people are absolutely spewing hatred in those comments.



True. The surprise for them will be that this God who has "totally unconditional love for every person" will cast more people into hell than he will embrace in heaven. 

Matthew 7: 13, 14 
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 9, 2010)

The fact that there are such comments, especially the ones that aren't simply attacks, is a good sign. I hope I develop a habit of writing that draws those who disagree with me into conversation with me and into my circle of influence.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 9, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I'd like to see a review from John Knox on _The Shack_.


 
Oh, you mean . . . _Another Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Evangelicals_???


----------



## Fly Caster (Feb 10, 2010)

*In Defense of "Bomb-Throwing"...*

A precision missile is always preferable than a treatment that heals "the hurt of my people slightly." Heretics are best left expired under a pile of well-placed rocks (so to speak). Kudos to the man who deals the lethal blow.

_The Shack_ is heresy and needs to be treated as such.


----------



## Bern (Feb 13, 2010)

I remember being practically speechless as a Christian woman I know was singing the praises of that book. I thought she was joking at first. 

"I'd like to see a review from John Knox on The Shack."

LOL. So would I!


----------

