So I Started Reading "The Shack" This Morning...
- Thread starter Marrow Man
- Start date
- Status
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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
I'm sneaky like that.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
CNJ
Puritan Board Senior
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.
“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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Having finished the book this afternoon, and after reading this, I can only conclude that 16 months was not long enough.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Tim Challies read the book himself.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
Drunk with Powder
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!
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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".
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Iron Dramatist
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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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?
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
Iron Dramatist
The answer is not so simple as "yes" or "no". Sorry.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
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!
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!
ericfromcowtown
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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
Puritan Board Professor
Add me to that PM if you would, especially since it's so prominent a book.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!
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Add me to that PM if you would, especially since it's so prominent a book.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!
Will do!
christiana
Puritan Board Senior
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I struggle with the same sort of questions often, as well.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
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.
The real purpose of the post, however, is to recommend to you Mary Kassian's excellent review of the book, found here.
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.
- Status
