So I finally started reading the Shack...

[kvanlaan]

I was challenged by a pastor-friend of mine who said that I "wasn't qualified to comment on it's contents if I hadn't read it through."

This is terrible logic. Is your pastor-friend critical of the Book of Mormon? The Koran? P*rn?

I asked my two adversaries the same thing: Would I need to tuck $10 into the g-string of a stripper in order to know that it was no place for a Christian? NO! I know that there is no place for a Christian in a strip joint, and trying to tell me that I have to 'experience' it first to really understand it is simply nonsense and dragging me down knee-deep into the barn-yard effluent. And now that I've read The Shack and am pointing out the deep errors, all I hear from them is "Well, it's not the Bible, you know!"

 

[toddpedlar]

On a positive note, after my father, who does not believe in God, read it he started reading the bible every day...

Dr. Parsley,

Praise God that your dad is reading the bible. However, and please know that I am not trying to be presumptuous or judgmental or anything negative, but the book should not be recommended based on your fathers experience.

I agree. I actually did give it to him because I had a strong feeling that it could be used by God for my Dad given where he was in his thinking. One step on the road, not the final one. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to just anyone without knowledge of where they are because it could be unhelpful.

I see it a bit like any artwork. Some will derive spiritual benefit from looking at Rembrandt's "Prodigal Son", but some will latch on to the heresy that's hidden there to their detriment. In the end, it's just a work of man not intended for anyone to take authoritatively and I very much doubt that anyone would take it as an authority in any way; I think they would be stimulated to think and, as my Dad did, turn to the bible to find out more (and correct impressions gained from the book). Having said that, I do think younger people can be more impressionable and should probably steer well away from The Shack, as well as Rembrandt.

This is a side-note but can you tell me what the heresy is 'hidden in Rembrandt's Prodigal Son'? I've never heard of this problem in that painting...

 

[dr_parsley]

This is a side-note but can you tell me what the heresy is 'hidden in Rembrandt's Prodigal Son'? I've never heard of this problem in that painting...

Oh well now you've put me on the spot I might have to backtrack , but the Father has one man's hand and one woman's hand. Obviously Rembrandt is trying to make a point; whatever it is I don't think it's in the WCF. I'm not sure it's heresy, but from the fuss that people make about God being female in The Shack, I thought it would be in the same category.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 08:55:28 EST-----

I asked my two adversaries the same thing: Would I need to tuck $10 into the g-string of a stripper in order to know that it was no place for a Christian? NO! I know that there is no place for a Christian in a strip joint, and trying to tell me that I have to 'experience' it first to really understand it is simply nonsense and dragging me down knee-deep into the barn-yard effluent. And now that I've read The Shack and am pointing out the deep errors, all I hear from them is "Well, it's not the Bible, you know!"

I totally sympathise with you and I'm really open to correction if I do not sufficiently often rebuke heresy, but the analogous situation would be if there were lots of professing Christians saying strip clubs were OK. Also, no-one is forcing you to criticise The Shack and, according to your "adversaries", I presume it would be OK for you to not read it and not criticise it.

Because it's so prevalent, I find it difficult to instantly empathise with getting animated and upset about the error we see around us. We are living in the world, and the world has reverted to wilderness with wild lions prowling all around. I can't leave my house without a lion growling at me through the bushes. This is where we live and I wouldn't get excited if I see a lion cub playing with the chain on the gate. Teach everyone, always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect. I confess that as a student I was led to memorise 1 Peter and as a result, perhaps out of proportion, that particular verse has always since been a mainstay of my practice. YES do it! But do it with gentleness and respect.

 

[kvanlaan]

I totally sympathise with you and I'm really open to correction if I do not sufficiently often rebuke heresy, but the analogous situation would be if there were lots of professing Christians saying strip clubs were OK. Also, no-one is forcing you to criticise The Shack and, according to your "adversaries", I presume it would be OK for you to not read it and not criticise it.

I think that's just the issue at hand: lots of professing Christians I know are saying that the Shack is OK when it is full of outright heresy. I think that's right on target with the analogy. I had a CRC pastor tell me that the hardest part for him was reading the first part of the book, the pre-Papa sections.

Also, the reason I was supposed to read it is because these two (a previous CRC member who is now a freewill Baptist, and a CRC member) asked me what I thought of it - they wanted a discussion on it. I had read Tim Challies' review and gave the highlights of that, but they said that wasn't enough - I had to read it to comment.

Also, we MUST criticize it (with scriptural backing and in love, mind you). We MUST teach our brothers who are lead astray that what they are doing is dangerous and leads down a heretical path. I remember hearing an atheist comment that he appreciated Christians prosteletizing, though he 'knew' there was no God. His comment was this: if you strongly believe there is a dump truck ready to run me down, though I believe it won't hit me or that there is actually no dump truck at all, how much do you have to hate me not to warn me about the dump truck? In fact, if you believe it strongly enough, you will bodily knock me out of the way at the last second. This is what we are called to do. Young presents a different gospel. What are we supposed to do with that? I think it is very clear in Scripture.

Because it's so prevalent, I find it difficult to instantly empathise with getting animated and upset about the error we see around us. We are living in the world, and the world has reverted to wilderness with wild lions prowling all around. I can't leave my house without a lion growling at me through the bushes. This is where we live and I wouldn't get excited if I see a lion cub playing with the chain on the gate. Teach everyone, always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect. I confess that as a student I was led to memorise 1 Peter and as a result, perhaps out of proportion, that particular verse has always since been a mainstay of my practice. YES do it! But do it with gentleness and respect.

The difference is that this rubbish is selling itself as Christianity. The world will act like the world - they're just pagans being pagans. But when you profess the name of Christ, you are held to a different standard altogether.

 

[Sven]

Here's a little experiment for anyone who wants to read the Shack: Read the Shack and then read the Book of Job. Take note of what the Shack says abouthow God deals with those who are suffering, and then take note of what Job says about how God deals with those who are suffering.

 

[kvanlaan]

Wait, God won't make breakfast for me to cheer me up?

 

[rpavich]

Sven,
No fair; you're comparing it to the bible!

 

[Sven]

Sven,
No fair; you're comparing it to the bible!

You wouldn't believe (or maybe you would) how many times I've heard Christians say, "Stop quoting the Bible."

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

My former seminary (Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the PC(USA)) sells that book in the seminary bookstore!

 

[CDM]

About indulging ones desire in reading spiritual filth like the Shack, I hear it often “It’s not like its p0rn!" The violations of the second table of the law i.e., the 7th and 10th commandments are no doubt sin. But the heresy, blasphemy, mockery of the Lord Almighty (violations of the 1st table) in the Shack is "art" or one's "perspective" that some may use to their benefit and some may not? Sorry for the sidetrack but I got to know. Concerning the analogy of the stripper being obviously off limits for Christians, can someone kindly tell me why a transgression of the 2nd table of the Law is much much *gasp* MUCH worse than transgressions of the first?

If anything, the shack and filth like it are far and beyond more vile and abominable than a Christian cavorting with a stripper could ever be. Anyone here duped into thinking p0rn is good for the soul? No. Anyone here duped into thinking rank blasphemy, and outright mockery of God himself found in the Shack is good for the soul? I hope not but some have me wondering...

The thing that is so abhorrent about the Shack is that it’s not even subtle like most heretical literature or teaching. It's not even clever nor does it inspire anything other than the base gratification of the flesh—quite like the man with the stripper. No, this is an outright, blatant, satanic salvo from the pit of hell...

…And Christians want to play with it.

 

[Caroline]

I asked my two adversaries the same thing: Would I need to tuck $10 into the g-string of a stripper in order to know that it was no place for a Christian? NO! I know that there is no place for a Christian in a strip joint, and trying to tell me that I have to 'experience' it first to really understand it is simply nonsense and dragging me down knee-deep into the barn-yard effluent. And now that I've read The Shack and am pointing out the deep errors, all I hear from them is "Well, it's not the Bible, you know!"

I have very mixed feelings on this subject. On the one hand, I am rather sensitive about being told what I can or cannot read. In the groups I was in before, information was extremely restricted. We were not allowed to watch TV or read anything that was not approved or that might cause us to 'doubt' ... and this is really how they kept us from realizing that there were criticisms of the church and its doctrine and practices or other views of things. I honestly had no idea until I was 17 and picked up an 'unapproved' book .... and quickly deconverted, just as I had been warned I would do.

On the other hand, it annoys me to no end when Charismatics and Pentecostals tell non-Charismatics and non-Pentecostals that they have to experience tongues in order to judge whether it is true, that it's not something you can explain, you just have to see for yourself, blah blah blah.

Of course, I HAVE experienced it and I say that and tell them it's all rubbish, and they reply, "Well, then you just didn't do it RIGHT. Go back and have another try", because, obviously, if I really experienced it, I would agree with them, right?

So that's when I do say as some have said here, "Well, I don't have to swim in a shark tank to know it's a bad idea. I'll pass."

If someone thinks The Shack is a great book, I'm not sure there's anything you can say to change their mind. It'll be like the tongues and prophecy thing .... well, you have to read it, and then you'll understand. Oh, you did read it? You still didn't like it? Well, my friend, you must not have read it RIGHT. Go back and have another try. Etc, etc.

It's not about the book particularly. It's a mindset.

 

[John Weathersby]

dr. parsley

If a book contains heresy I cannot see how you would justify providing it to an unbeliever? That does not stand to scripture as a means of evangelism or communicating the Gospel. I recently heard Matt Chandler preaching on letters he received from Osteen supporters he noted that (loose quotation from memory) while people may be saved after a death in the family, we don’t pray for our unsaved friends and family to experience a tragic loss to bring them to Christ. Pragmatism is not the answer.

Further, Matthew 28:19 states, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”, we GO because Jesus has all authority and be cause were told to, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which can only be correctly understood as revealed in the Bible. Finaly, we teach them to observe all that He commanded us, which again can ONLY be rightly understood as provided in the Bible. When another work contradicts clear teachings in the Bible (who God is, the Trinity, etc…) we DON’T provide it to unbelievers within the context of evangelism.

You stated that you had a “strong feeling that it could be used by God”, what if your strong feeling was wrong, the follow your heart logic doesn’t work for me in light of depravity “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9).”

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. (Tit 1:15/16)” This understood about the unbelieving, they are unfit for any good work. So an interesting piece of nonfiction will NOT bring them to repentance. That would be a functional Armenian view, that we can bring someone to a decision for Christ via something outside of scripture or other than the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

With the kids of warnings given as in 1 Cor 11 regarding the serpent, “the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor 11:2)”, and again, “And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds 2 Cor 11:12-15)”. Where is the benefit in reading or recommending something that contains clear heresy?

Pragmatism has no place in the things of salvation, scripture clearly warns of our sinful condition, of our need for salvation, and of who brings salvation. I cannot see recommending this book as a method of evangelizing the lost?
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart (1 Cor 1:18/19).” If the ‘word of the cross’ or the Gospel, is folly or offensive to those who are perishing, why would we try to change the message to make it easier to swallow? God already condescended in Christ and in scripture, so that we could be regenerated and live life eternal with Christ’s righteousness, not our own. This said, it’s a fallacy to think that we can spark someone’s interest with something heretical which portrays God has he did not reveal himself.

In Him for the Gospel

 

[dr_parsley]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to address your concern and I appreciate the manner in which you do it.

dr. parsley
If a book contains heresy I cannot see how you would justify providing it to an unbeliever?

It's a good question and one I didn't think about in detail because in this case it seemed clear to me. If someone is stoned out of their brain in a strip joint and I persuade them to come with me into an ordinary nightclub, I have improved their situation. That's a terrible analogy and I want to delete it!

I don't want to get into detail about The Shack, but I read it quickly and identified several dodgy places which could be argued either way if you go deeply enough, like if I imagine a thousand post thread on a discussion forum like this and both sides go as deep as you like you can end up seeing that it can be seen either way as [heretical] or simply [overly brief assuming the reader isn't keenly looking to find heresy]. In such cases I tend to be regretful and wary but forgiving and would appreciate a conversation with the author to clarify how we both think. In my quick read, there was just one thing in The Shack that was clearly and unavoidably heresy - the commonly held notion that everyone is God's child.

In that context, and bearing in mind that there is nothing of Christ in my dad's life, filling his mind with a book which has many true Christian notions, many borderline ones and one untrue one seems attractive when those things are replacing in his mind total worldliness and nothing even approaching heresy because it doesn't even approach being about God. Hence my picture above of taking someone out of a strip club into a nightclub - maybe their head will clear enough so you can talk them into going home to sleep it off.

When another work contradicts clear teachings in the Bible (who God is, the Trinity, etc…) we DON’T provide it to unbelievers within the context of evangelism.

It was more like pre-evangelism, certainly not to be left there, but to be developed e.g. into a conversation about what struck him about the book, what the bible says about it; to get him thinking along lines where a good conversation could occur. It's rather difficult to witness to ones own father.

You stated that you had a “strong feeling that it could be used by God”, what if your strong feeling was wrong, the follow your heart logic doesn’t work for me in light of depravity “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9).”

I hope that I wasn't following my heart, but that I was following God. The question is how to discern God's prompting. I don't think that is subject to a situational analysis; it's a judgment that we all have to make every day isn't it? If we are always afraid to follow internal promptings we will never be be successfully prompted the Holy Spirit. It has to be a personal judgment; in this case because my dad ended up reading the bible daily and both my parents agreed to attend an Alpha course[0], I think God may very well be at work.

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. (Tit 1:15/16)” This understood about the unbelieving, they are unfit for any good work. So an interesting piece of nonfiction will NOT bring them to repentance. That would be a functional Armenian view, that we can bring someone to a decision for Christ via something outside of scripture or other than the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

You're right - I would never expect a repentance from someone reading The Shack, but that wasn't the goal.

[0] I'm new here and don't know if something like the Alpha course is also considered the work of the devil, so I'm sorry if it is!

 

[Caroline]

I have to admit that dr_parsley has a point about something, which is that most people don't jump straight from one extreme to another. I'm not quite sure that giving someone 'The Shack' is quite the way to go about it .... but in the interest of providing more positive recommendations on something that is a very realistic problem ....

Well, I run into this all the time. For example, I may know that I cannot convince my friend Hazel that she isn't really speaking in tongues (at least, not yet), but if I can convince her to stop sending money she can't afford to Benny Hinn and to use it to pay her rent instead, I've moved her to a better situation than she was in before.

I think most of us here who converted likely changed our views over time, and not all at once.

So, if you know that you can't reach someone by handing them Calvin's Institutes, what exactly do you do? What is a good 'halfway point' idea?

 

[kvanlaan]

I'm new here and don't know if something like the Alpha course is also considered the work of the devil, so I'm sorry if it is!

Just a little FYI:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/alpha-course-question-ditch-43079/

So, if you know that you can't reach someone by handing them Calvin's Institutes, what exactly do you do? What is a good 'halfway point' idea?

Give them the gospel, it's worked for 2000 years.

 

[Caroline]

Give them the gospel, it's worked for 2000 years.

True, but the point here is ... how? Let's not oversimplify things. Paul talked about becoming 'all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some' (I Cor 9). 'Just give them the gospel' is like when someone asks 'what should I make for dinner' and someone answers 'food'. It might be true, but it doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Jon Peters]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to address your concern and I appreciate the manner in which you do it.

dr. parsley
If a book contains heresy I cannot see how you would justify providing it to an unbeliever?

It's a good question and one I didn't think about in detail because in this case it seemed clear to me. If someone is stoned out of their brain in a strip joint and I persuade them to come with me into an ordinary nightclub, I have improved their situation. That's a terrible analogy and I want to delete it!

I don't want to get into detail about The Shack, but I read it quickly and identified several dodgy places which could be argued either way if you go deeply enough, like if I imagine a thousand post thread on a discussion forum like this and both sides go as deep as you like you can end up seeing that it can be seen either way as [heretical] or simply [overly brief assuming the reader isn't keenly looking to find heresy]. In such cases I tend to be regretful and wary but forgiving and would appreciate a conversation with the author to clarify how we both think. In my quick read, there was just one thing in The Shack that was clearly and unavoidably heresy - the commonly held notion that everyone is God's child.

In that context, and bearing in mind that there is nothing of Christ in my dad's life, filling his mind with a book which has many true Christian notions, many borderline ones and one untrue one seems attractive when those things are replacing in his mind total worldliness and nothing even approaching heresy because it doesn't even approach being about God. Hence my picture above of taking someone out of a strip club into a nightclub - maybe their head will clear enough so you can talk them into going home to sleep it off.

When another work contradicts clear teachings in the Bible (who God is, the Trinity, etc…) we DON’T provide it to unbelievers within the context of evangelism.

It was more like pre-evangelism, certainly not to be left there, but to be developed e.g. into a conversation about what struck him about the book, what the bible says about it; to get him thinking along lines where a good conversation could occur. It's rather difficult to witness to ones own father.

You stated that you had a “strong feeling that it could be used by God”, what if your strong feeling was wrong, the follow your heart logic doesn’t work for me in light of depravity “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9).”

I hope that I wasn't following my heart, but that I was following God. The question is how to discern God's prompting. I don't think that is subject to a situational analysis; it's a judgment that we all have to make every day isn't it? If we are always afraid to follow internal promptings we will never be be successfully prompted the Holy Spirit. It has to be a personal judgment; in this case because my dad ended up reading the bible daily and both my parents agreed to attend an Alpha course[0], I think God may very well be at work.

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. (Tit 1:15/16)” This understood about the unbelieving, they are unfit for any good work. So an interesting piece of nonfiction will NOT bring them to repentance. That would be a functional Armenian view, that we can bring someone to a decision for Christ via something outside of scripture or other than the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

You're right - I would never expect a repentance from someone reading The Shack, but that wasn't the goal.

[0] I'm new here and don't know if something like the Alpha course is also considered the work of the devil, so I'm sorry if it is!

There is something to Parsley's logic (though I don't think I agree with his application in this case). I've actually considered recommending Camus and Sartre to an atheist nephew. I believe those authors show the utter despair that is endemic to their philosophies.

 

[rpavich]

It was more like pre-evangelism, certainly not to be left there, but to be developed e.g. into a conversation about what struck him about the book, what the bible says about it; to get him thinking along lines where a good conversation could occur.

Not to be too blunt about this but by this criteria wouldn't the Book of Mormon and Koran qualify also?

They are also "spiritual" books filled with unbiblical lies.


I know it's very hard to witness to family members...trust me I know

Here's how I did it.


Mom: you know that I'm a Christian now right? (yes) Well, I wanted to tell you something because I love you and I care about you."

(what is it Son?)

And then I explained the gospel to each of my family members. Change the "Mom" to "sisters" and you got the picture.

Mom poo poo'd it
Sister one shrugged it off
Sister two said "you've got your religion i've got mine"
Sister 3 said "if you ever talk to me about religion again I'll disown you"


Ahh...the life of a Christian...

 

[dr_parsley]

I've actually considered recommending Camus and Sartre to an atheist nephew. I believe those authors show the utter despair that is endemic to their philosophies.

When I was in transition from atheist to Christian, the book of Ecclesiastes was wonderful medicine! Someone should package the book of Ecclesiastes like something written by one of these post-modern gurus so people don't initially know it's from the bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if it would be a huge hit.

 

[kvanlaan]

True, but the point here is ... how? Let's not oversimplify things. Paul talked about becoming 'all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some' (I Cor 9). 'Just give them the gospel' is like when someone asks 'what should I make for dinner' and someone answers 'food'. It might be true, but it doesn't really answer the question.

Why not verbally? Ray Comfort has a really interesting talk on using the law in a very simple and logical way to present the gospel.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4605115842

He's not reformed, and I have some issues with some of his stuff, but this is a great starting point. (Beats the pants off of a somewhat triune female godhead, I'd say).

 

[dr_parsley]

It was more like pre-evangelism, certainly not to be left there, but to be developed e.g. into a conversation about what struck him about the book, what the bible says about it; to get him thinking along lines where a good conversation could occur.

Not to be too blunt about this but by this criteria wouldn't the Book of Mormon and Koran qualify also?

Yes it would, but as I said this kind of decision wouldn't submit to a situational analysis - it is a judgment made in the Spirit. If you can't handle that, there's nothing I can say.

 

[Caroline]

it is a judgment made in the Spirit. If you can't handle that, there's nothing I can say.

Whoa ... ok ... hmmm .... Well, dr_parsley, I was sorta tempted to somewhat side with you (although still not sure that 'The Shack was the way to go, but I understand the frustration of not knowing of good introductory material to help introduce people to Reformed theology--Reformed people use so many big words!), but let's be careful about calling our impulses 'a judgment made in the Spirit'. I mean, it works well for shutting people up because you are essentially saying, "If you argue with me, you are arguing with God", but remember the 3rd commandment, my friend. None of us is infallible in our judgment. I don't mean to be harsh (and I fear that the tone of my post here may come across harsher than I intended), and I know it's a shortcut that seems very tempting, but the implication here is that you have the Spirit and none of us do (at least on this matter), so your actions are not open to question. That is not true of any of us.

 

[dr_parsley]

Caroline, thank you for your comment and the opportunity to explain and discuss it, and also for your temper on something that is maybe a sensitive area for you.

it is a judgment made in the Spirit. If you can't handle that, there's nothing I can say.

Whoa ... ok ... hmmm .... Well, dr_parsley, I was sorta tempted to somewhat side with you (although still not sure that 'The Shack was the way to go, but I understand the frustration of not knowing of good introductory material to help introduce people to Reformed theology--Reformed people use so many big words!), but let's be careful about calling our impulses 'a judgment made in the Spirit'. I mean, it works well for shutting people up because you are essentially saying, "If you argue with me, you are arguing with God", but remember the 3rd commandment, my friend. None of us is infallible in our judgment. I don't mean to be harsh (and I fear that the tone of my post here may come across harsher than I intended), and I know it's a shortcut that seems very tempting, but the implication here is that you have the Spirit and none of us do (at least on this matter), so your actions are not open to question. That is not true of any of us.

I agree we should be careful in calling our impulses 'judgments of the Spirit'. Absolutely. Do you deny that it is possible to make a judgment in the Spirit?

Remember that I haven't attributed to a judgment in the Spirit a doctrine, or a general principle or even a repeatable action. If it was my deceitful heart speaking, then we'll find out in the fullness of time but the results seem to agree with the impulse. Do you think that fear of that should prevent us from ever daring to be attentive to the Spirit?

I don't ask that in a provocative frame of mind - I really don't know what people here think. I considered myself Reformed; I enjoy Puritan books regularly, John Owen is my absolute hero; but some of what I see here is difficult to swallow.

 

[John Weathersby]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to address your concern and I appreciate the manner in which you do it.

Likewise. I’m interested in dividing the word of God (2 Tim 2:15) not burning anyone at the stake!

It's a good question and one I didn't think about in detail because in this case it seemed clear to me. If someone is stoned out of their brain in a strip joint and I persuade them to come with me into an ordinary nightclub, I have improved their situation. That's a terrible analogy and I want to delete it!

I don't want to get into detail about The Shack, but I read it quickly and identified several dodgy places which could be argued either way if you go deeply enough, like if I imagine a thousand post thread on a discussion forum like this and both sides go as deep as you like you can end up seeing that it can be seen either way as [heretical] or simply [overly brief assuming the reader isn't keenly looking to find heresy]. In such cases I tend to be regretful and wary but forgiving and would appreciate a conversation with the author to clarify how we both think. In my quick read, there was just one thing in The Shack that was clearly and unavoidably heresy - the commonly held notion that everyone is God's child.

I hope I can note, without coming across as pampas, that my responses to you provide the direction relating to the issue as I find it in scripture. Your responses to me are based around your logic and feelings. I believe this is a MAJOR flaw. Scripture’s authority is ultimate and higher than ‘dr parsley’ . However, I will address what you have stated above using the Bible as the authority relating to how we are to evangelize and if heresy has a place in that work.

If I‘ve rightly understood and applied the scriptures would you agree that the scripture trumps your feelings?

The strip club example is extreme and gathers a lot of attention, however I don’t see the parallel. Are you suggesting that by exposing your father to a gateway to false religion (misunderstanding of the Trinity and person of God) you’ve improved his situation? If the Gospel is foolishness to the natural man, why present the natural man with something that may make him ‘feel better’ and desensitize him to the truths discussed in scripture?

Further, the idea of improving the temporal satiation is similar to the premise of the book “Your Best Life Now”. Your situation may be ‘better’, however, are we called to preach the Gospel and Evangelize the lost, or make people’s lives better through heresy? Zoloft may ‘make your life better’, however ,what if your are being convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and you medicate out the physical outworking of that sin’s discomfort was this ultimatly for good?

Again, I provided the model discussed in Matthew 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Our model is make disciples, baptizing them in the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, which must be rightly understood, teaching them to observe all that’s been commanded by Jesus, which we cannot rightly understand without even knowing who Jesus is. There is enough biblical warnings about misunderstanding Jesus and false teachings (1 Cor 15:1, 2 Cor 11:3/4, Gal 1:6-9, 2 Tim 4:4-5, 2 Pet 2:1) why entertain a book which obviously misrepresents the Trinity in an effort to sneak in some easily swallowed “Christian” materials. You could do this with the Mormon at the door, or the Jehovah Witness at the Door, or the Bahia at the door, but would you? They’ll give scriptural truth, as will the shack, but it’s the heresy that’s dangerous! Why let the heresy in?

In that context, and bearing in mind that there is nothing of Christ in my dad's life, filling his mind with a book which has many true Christian notions, many borderline ones and one untrue one seems attractive when those things are replacing in his mind total worldliness and nothing even approaching heresy because it doesn't even approach being about God. Hence my picture above of taking someone out of a strip club into a nightclub - maybe their head will clear enough so you can talk them into going home to sleep it off.

Again, this is an unbiblical scenario you’ve come up with. I don’t see scripture telling us to clear our heads, get in a comfortable grace covered situation then consider the Gospel when you’re feeling good. If one’s salvation requires that you’re able to talk them into things, then someone else can talk them out of it. Salvation is unto the Lord.

It was more like pre-evangelism, certainly not to be left there, but to be developed e.g. into a conversation about what struck him about the book, what the bible says about it; to get him thinking along lines where a good conversation could occur. It's rather difficult to witness to ones own father.

I see pre-evangelism to be something such as apologetic disagreement, however, it’s only PRE, the Gospel is what’s of FIRST IMPORTANCE, not temporal comfort so you would go from pre-evangelism directly into the Gospel. I would NOT view providing heretical ‘doctrine’ as pre-evangelism. I don’t that anything, taken at face value which has the potential for damming confusion could be viewed as pre-evangelism. This said, if someone read the shack said oh I get it, God is one person, there for all members of the trinity paid for my sin because God is one, so it’s like the Jehovah Witness’ teach, and I need to earn my salvation, well I can work towards that starting tomorrow.; then had a hard attack and died would be in strong contention for hell. Thus, I say this could NOT be pre-evangelism.

I hope that I wasn't following my heart, but that I was following God. The question is how to discern God's prompting. I don't think that is subject to a situational analysis; it's a judgment that we all have to make every day isn't it? If we are always afraid to follow internal promptings we will never be be successfully prompted the Holy Spirit. It has to be a personal judgment; in this case because my dad ended up reading the bible daily and both my parents agreed to attend an Alpha course[0], I think God may very well be at work.

Yes, how do we discern God’s prompting, well we know it will NOT collide with scripture, we know that scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16/17)”. So this said, we search the scripture to understand and discern if providing this work as evangelism is appropriate, as I’ve said thus far, I don’t see how it could possibly stand to scripture to provide a heretical work as evangelism or even pre-evangelism.

We should not be afraid to follow promptings from the spirit, but we are to remain pure and hide Gods word in our heart (Psalm 119:9-16) if, as I quoted earlier, scripture is profitable for teaching and reproof for training in righteousness, and it cannot return void (Isa 55:11) that’s where we should go to understand what we're being called to do by the Spirit. We can know confidently that we're NEVER being called by the spirit to do something outside of Gods will.

This argument is similar to one I received from a Mormon at my house recently. Even though we’ve agreed to table some issues where we disagree while keeping them in view, why would I become a Mormon with the issues I take that are in disagreement in the bible? The Mormon says, I need to pray for confirmation from the sprit. However, if I know already from Scripture that there are issues, why would I pray to ‘feel’ something? Can I feel wrong? Can the homosexual pastor who prayed and received confirmation that it’s ok to be Gay and Christian have received a lying spirit? We’ll he CAN know from scripture that being homosexual is in contradiction with God’s will, so why entertain it? Why would we assume that the spirit is leading us to do something that God’s spoken against?

So dr p, the whole of my position is, Scripture is our guide, why would we turn to anything else? I don’t see scripture prescribing alternative methods of evangelism. If your goal is evangelism preach the Gospel man! Christ and him crucified, it’s foolish to the dead yes, but it has the power of life! I’ll pray for your dad, possibly share this conversation with him the argument against the shack, as pre-evangelism now that he’s read it and give him the Gospel, it’s Gods power unto salvation. If you want him to have a better life, turn him on to Joel Osteen if you want him to have eternal life turn him on to Jesus!

 

[jonmo]

It's a minor point in this whole discussion, but the book itself is very poorly written. It is a pretty amateur effort and I would be embarrassed to give it to anyone from a literary point of view - and that's before the suspect theology.

I have read the entire book from cover to cover and found it painful. It was given to me by a well-intentioned female, charismatic friend from Florida and I read it out of politeness and as a means to having a conversation with her afterwards on why I didn't agree with it.

I simply could not recommend it to anyone, especially not a seeker. It is particularly depressing to hear senior Christian leaders endorse this book. Eugene Peterson compared the Shack to Bunyan's Piolgrim's Progress - what an insult to Bunyan and to Christianity in general.

 

[dr_parsley]

If I‘ve rightly understood and applied the scriptures would you agree that the scripture trumps your feelings?

Absolutely - that so much goes without saying it's like you've told me that I have to get out of bed in the morning before I get dressed.

The strip club example is extreme and gathers a lot of attention, however I don’t see the parallel. Are you suggesting that by exposing your father to a gateway to false religion (misunderstanding of the Trinity and person of God) you’ve improved his situation? If the Gospel is foolishness to the natural man, why present the natural man with something that may make him ‘feel better’ and desensitize him to the truths discussed in scripture?

I don't at all recognise your characterisation of the situation so I suspect there may be a miscommunication. Him reading The Shack was in no way to try to convert him; I would be concerned if he based his beliefs on The Shack; it was to get him to think rather to stop thinking, to get him sensitive rather than desensitized. My father doesn't believe in sin at all; he believes he's a good man and if God doesn't accept him then there must be something wrong with God. The TV programmes he watches every day contain more heresy than in The Shack so reading the Shack was an improvement. Him reading the Shack was absolutely to open a gateway to conversations where I can share the gospel. You know family is difficult and fathers especially because of the respect we have for them in our social structures. A friend of mine yesterday was telling me that in his culture he can't say "you" to his father - he has to construct his sentences to avoid the word altogether or else it is a great scandal. In Zulu culture it would be wrong for a man to look his father in the eye. In my English culture it's much less difficult than that, but it is still difficult to go barging in to "educate" him. Having said that, of course I've shared the gospel explicitly with my family before! These days it seems to be a strong witness for my parents to see my own functional family being brought up in faith; my (3 year old) children witness to my parents quite effectively as well! My son told them recently that although his mum and dad were away for the day it was OK because God was looking after him. Anyway, situations change and the potential for different types of witness change and I want to grasp every one. If I thought it was sinful or unhelpful for him to read The Shack then I certainly wouldn't give it.

On further thought, I wouldn't be happy if my father came to faith through ANY sort of pamphlet or book other than the bible. Other material can help, but they'll always be flawed, and they should lead to the bible or to one of God's people explaining the gospel.

Further, the idea of improving the temporal satiation is similar to the premise of the book “Your Best Life Now”. Your situation may be ‘better’, however, are we called to preach the Gospel and Evangelize the lost, or make people’s lives better through heresy? Zoloft may ‘make your life better’, however ,what if your are being convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and you medicate out the physical outworking of that sin’s discomfort was this ultimatly for good?

I see here it was the strip club analogy which has misled you - sorry about that. Him reading The Shack in no way could have made him feel happier or more satisfied, because he was fully happy and satisfied already... It could only work towards the opposite. The analogy was meant to indicate someone starting in place A, and then going to place B before C, where both A and B were undesirable and C desirable.

We should not be afraid to follow promptings from the spirit, but we are to remain pure and hide Gods word in our heart (Psalm 119:9-16) if, as I quoted earlier, scripture is profitable for teaching and reproof for training in righteousness, and it cannot return void (Isa 55:11) that’s where we should go to understand what we're being called to do by the Spirit. We can know confidently that we're NEVER being called by the spirit to do something outside of Gods will.

Absolutely. For the reasons I've given I can see no reason why it was outside of God's will. To temporarily replace one dead mind-set with a slightly less dead one SO THAT for that temporary time he can understand a bit more of what I say about Christ has done no damage or put him under a risk of conversion to heresy. Also, if he ever comes alive and realises who and what God is, then I'm confident he would take up whatever doctrine I explain him, because he respects me, so he wouldn't stay in error for long even if his route was, say, Arminian or Roman Catholic.

 

[rpavich]

Dr. P,
Not to be too critical but:

The TV programmes he watches every day contain more heresy than in The Shack so reading the Shack was an improvement.

The problem with this idea is that unlike the blasphemous TV programs, this one masquerades as truth.

So once you talk to your father and try and share the real actual truth, you have to "undo" all that he's read in the Shack...


Then I'm left with the question: "what good did it do to read the Shack in the first place?"


My other observation would be this...don't you think that you're making an argument from pragmatism? If it works in some small way then it's validated?

That's the same argument the stripper church, the shot-glass church, the circus church give for their methods.

I don't think that's a good way to measure what should be done and what should not be done.

Brother, please don't think that I'm ganging up on you...these are just some of my observations as a layman.

 

[kvanlaan]

 

[dr_parsley]

Dr. P,
Not to be too critical but:

The TV programs he watches every day contain more heresy than in The Shack so reading the Shack was an improvement.

The problem with this idea is that unlike the blasphemous TV programs, this one masquerades as truth.

When I wrote that I was thinking about the presentation of Christians and Christianity in these TV programs. I virtually haven't watched TV in the 14 years since I became a Christian but I seem to recall a lot of token Christians on dramas and soap operas who give horrendous advice to others. Programs in the UK called "The Vicar of Dibley" or something, and Father Ted are obvious examples but misrepresentation of Christianity is everywhere on the BBC etc.

So once you talk to your father and try and share the real actual truth, you have to "undo" all that he's read in the Shack...

His first words to me after reading it, were "Does this really reflect Christianity?" It got my dad asking me to tell him about Christ...

My other observation would be this...don't you think that you're making an argument from pragmatism? If it works in some small way then it's validated?

Not so much pragmatism as opportunism. The devil won't waste any opportunities, neither should we so long as they don't produce sin.

Brother, please don't think that I'm ganging up on you...these are just some of my observations as a layman.

Not at all, it's good to think about these things.

 

[rpavich]

Brother P,

I'm very glad that your Dads first question was "does this reflect Christianity"...he's much smarter than many Christians that I know!


This statement is problematic for me:

neither should we so long as they don't produce sin.

I found the things that were stated in "the Shack" to be not only blasphemous, but horrifying and incredibly disrespectful to the God that I love and therefore sinful.

If someone had portrayed my Mother in such a light I might have punched them in the nose! (If that's the way I'd do things) it was that bad.

I guess for me the bottom line is; I love God, so when someone writes a book and "disses" Him, the things He's taught, the things He's revealed, the things that He's set up, then I get mad!

And again...the day that someone says "My sister was saved by attending a "strippers for Christ" convention" then where are we?