Open Mind, Closed Bible
Almost eight months after my review of The Shack I continue to get daily emails about it. This is proof, I suppose, of the book’s continued success. I do not know if the novel’s popularity has peaked yet but can see that it is still at the top of its category on many of the bestseller lists. The emails I receive typically fit into one of two categories: the “thanks for the review” category or the “how dare you?” category. Today I want to address just two of the more common critiques of my critique of the book.
Here is how one reader expressed herself: “Hello Tim. I read your review after I had already read The Shack and I think your review is ridiculous. Your review reminds me of exactly why ‘stodgy old religion’ is so unappealing to masses of people.William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” Another concerned reader told me of a professor in a conservative seminary who was untroubled by much of the book’s poor theology. “I was surprised that he seemed not as concerned due to the fact that it is a novel and so some leeway should be allowed for ‘poetic license.’ He acknowledged my concerns and said he shared them as well but said the novel did not ‘intend to do theology.’” I have received these comments, or ones like them, time and time again.
There are two broad arguments used here.
The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.
There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.
The second argument is that The Shack is not a work of theology and, therefore, must not be treated as such. An article at Christianity Today makes this argument. “It’s tricky to speak definitively of The Shack’s theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a “parable” (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.” And in their review of the book they say, “Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology and its storyline, not for its faulty mechanics. Reviewers have criticized the book for hinting at universalism, as well as for feminism and a lack of hierarchy in the Trinity. Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
This is a convenient argument but one we need to guard against. It creates a false, unrealistic division between works that are theological and works that are not. Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision (such as a Systematic Theology) and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not. The Shack is, by the author’s own admission, a work that seeks to change the reader’s perception of God. It is deeply theological! Read the reviews of this book and you will find readers saying how much this book impacted their understanding of God’s person and nature.
Tom Neven, writing for Boundless Line, covers this well in an article titled “But It’s Only Fiction.”
If you’re going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.
So if you’re going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he’s supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don’t care if he’s trying to make God more “accessible.” He’s violated the rules of fiction.
More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to “improve” the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.
The Shack is theological fiction. If it talks about God, it must be so! While it may not require the kind of precision we would expect from a work of formal theology, we cannot deny that the author seeks to teach what he believes to be true about God. And we cannot then deny that it teaches theology that is, in a word, false. It is not an issue of precision but of right and wrong! Fiction is a powerful medium for communicating truth and the evidence of this is in every positive review of the book; the evidence is in the fact that Jesus Himself often communicated using fiction.
The reader who complained about “stodgy old religion” exhorted me to “try to re-read the Shack with a more open mind.” But from her email and the others like it, I can see that in this case an open mind would require a closed Bible. We cannot set aside Scripture even when we read fiction. There is no such thing as only fiction.
Comments (96) »
1. Ford
August 6, 2008
10:21 AM
“William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The above may definitely be true but which God are they growing closer to? The God of the Bible? Or of The Shack?
2. Andy
August 6, 2008
10:33 AM
Tim,
Thanks for addressing these questions. This book has become a replacement for Biblical truth where I live…….scary.
3. Ron
August 6, 2008
10:36 AM
Sorry… but I want to grow closer to the God of the bible not the god of someones imagination. I read books that help me to do that. Books that take me the “other” way are just plain dangerous.
4. jeff_r
August 6, 2008
10:42 AM
Tim -
I appreciate your earnestness and sincerity, but your continued recalcitrant and ugly opposition to this wonderful work is wearying. It’s clear that you read into the text various theological positions that that author has clearly and explicitly repudiated (specifically with regard to the Trinity, the Atontement and Universalism - search on Google and YouTube for his statements) and I don’t doubt that when you “see” these things in the text, you experience a real and emotional aversion to them, but I think you are lacking circumspection here.
I think it’s fair to say that if you “saw” these theological positions in the book, that others might and that, therefore, the book should be avoided. Because of this, you feel justified in lambasting a work that theologians much greater than yourself have come out in strong support of without noting the “serious” concerns you seem to see. But, while it’s fair to say that, it unfortunately applies to the book you seem to think is so wrongly abused by many of The Shack’s defenders - the Bible. In other words, if you can only recommend to people books that are not subject to misinterpretations of the authors’ intent, you will have a slim bookshelf indeed.
The book itself is a touching and meaningful devotional work that does so much to oppose, in an accessible way, the constant drumbeat of secularist and anti-theistic rhetoric regarding God’s love and compassion in the face of suffering. From God Is Not Great to God’s Problem, the reading public has been assaulted with the challenge of reconciling the of evil and suffering of humanity with a good and loving and powerful God. The Shack is certainly no point-by-point refutation of these bad philosophies (I recommend several of Marilyn McCord Adam’s books for that), but it is an accessible treatment of numbing evil being reconciled with an all-powerful, beneficient creator in the context of a human story.
Why you continue to miss this central and vital point over misunderstandings of the author’s other theological perspectives (offered, at best, as peripheral observations - and, admittedly, not by the best writer around) is hard to understand.
Peace.
5. Tony
August 6, 2008
10:42 AM
I really liked the book, but i do see truth in what you say. Guess i’ll just settle that it is a good read (for me), despite a lot of flawed concepts. Ah, how unfortunate. This book would have been legendary if the theology was biblically sound.
6. John
August 6, 2008
10:51 AM
Tim, Thanks for your review. I’m using it with folks in our church who are asking me about the book. It seems to come down to people who want to seperate theology from life. I just don’t see how you can do it and totally agree with your view of the book. Thanks again,
7. Curtis Serben
August 6, 2008
10:51 AM
Hey Tim Looks like the shack is a work of fiction along the lines of Purpose Driven, theologically I mean. I personally wouldnt touch this book, I can see no benifit in reading bad theology, except maybe to use it as a springboard to witness to the unsaved that loved this book. I don’t believe anyone who loves God and is born again by the Spirit of God could love this book, how can someone enjoy a work that defames and perverts Gods character?
8. James
August 6, 2008
10:53 AM
Although I know some may claim my comparison of the two literary forms is blasphemy, if, as CT says, the book was intended as a parable, would the “look for the one lesson” manner of interpreting biblical parables apply? Some of the “qualities” of God in the parables of the unrighteous judge or the friend knocking on the door of his sleeping friend’s house may assign theologically incorrect attributes to God if every characteristic is brought over from the literary lesson to reality.
Having said all that, though, I do wish many could get as excited about biblical lessons as about easy-to-read novels on spiritual warfare, the Tribulation, or any number of other topics.
9. Larry
August 6, 2008
10:57 AM
Amen brother! The negative reactions you’re getting to your review are symptomatic of a church that long ago abandoned theology in favor of feel-good religion (as has much of the church in the west). The guys at the White Horse Inn call what passes for Christianity in many circles today moralistic therapeutic deism. Since people have been taught to believe that feelings come first and truth second (if at all) any attempt to point out the inaccuracy of a person’s theology is seen as mean-spirited and unchristian (after all it might make them, or those who agree with them feel bad, a violation of the prime directive.)
You’re not scratching the itching ears and there’s always a price to pay for that! :-)
10. Annette Gysen
August 6, 2008
11:00 AM
The Shack is just another version of Israel’s golden calf of Exodus 32, man’s making an idol, this time, in the form of something from the earth below. We see how quickly the people of Israel, including Aaron, the high priest, fell in line there, and the bestseller lists show that people of the 21st century aren’t much wiser. Sadly, people prefer William Young’s god to the Holy God of Scripture. He/she likes to “hang out,” cook, stargaze, and garden. It’s hard to worship a god like that, but you could have lunch with him/her or go to a movie together. Only the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts can bring us to a real appreciation of the God of Isaiah 6, who drives us to our knees and makes us realize who we are and how much we need Him.
11. Kyle
August 6, 2008
11:04 AM
I agree that the Shack has some serious theological issues. Are they too serious? That’s for the discerning reader to decide with the Spirit and the Word as guide. What I don’t understand is the apparent hypocrisy in those who strongly discourage reading the Shack while praising the reading and watching of the Narnia books and movies.
If you are going to suggest readers avoid the Shack, then be consistent and discourage readers from reading The Chronicles of Narnia as well. Narnia shares many of the same theological issues as the Shack. It’s Trinitarianism is questionable, and it clearly teaches inclusivism (if not complete universalism). This last theological point in the Narnia books has been used by Brian McLaren in his book “The Story We Find Ourselves In,” to support universalism, and from Lewis’ other works it is obvious that he fell somewhere between inclusivism and full universalism.
So why is there this discouragement of one work alongside the encouragement and praise of another whenever they espouse the same theological errors?
12. Jake
August 6, 2008
11:08 AM
The most frustrating thing about “but it’s only fiction!” is that The Shack is being promoted (by its author and publisher) as much more than fiction. Apparently it’s supposed to change your life by changing how you think about God— that’s what the press says, and what the celebrity-Christian blurbs say.
Promoting it this way (and passing around “tear-stained copies” in order to change others’ lives as well) makes it ridiculous to then respond to theological criticism with “but it’s only fiction!”
13. Chuck Thomas
August 6, 2008
11:14 AM
Tim: Thanks for yet more insightful comments on The Shack. I appreciate your conclusion, as it hit very close to home for me. After months of resistance, I finally broke down and read The Shack, but I did so with an open mind, AND open Bible.
I am actually glad I read it, mostly to see what the fuss/excitement was all about. On the one hand, I can understand why people have enjoyed reading it. Theology aside, I found it to be a clever storyline. On the other hand, its problems with speaking truth about God really are glaring. And its potential to mislead someone who is struggling with their understanding of the nature of God is considerable.
Thanks for your part of the continuing effort to shine light on The Shack’s pitfalls and shortcomings.
14. Jake
August 6, 2008
11:18 AM
The Narnia comparison is also pretty common. I agree that Lewis had some theological issues. But there are at least two differences. First of all, the example everyone gives— the vignette in Last Battle that suggests inclusivism or universalism— is about three paragraphs out of seven books. I’m sure there are other things I wish Lewis had done differently, but this is the exception rather than the rule in the series— by a long shot. The overwhelming positives of the series vastly outweigh the few negatives.
Secondly, Narnia is not an allegory or a parable— it’s a series of fantasy books driven by a Christian worldview, and there are elements that present Christian truths in powerful ways. The Shack puts words in the mouths of the persons of the Trinity. There’s a big difference between that and a lion who serves as a Christ figure.
15. jeff_r
August 6, 2008
11:20 AM
“I don’t believe anyone who loves God and is born again by the Spirit of God could love this book, how can someone enjoy a work that defames and perverts Gods character”
Wow. Pride? Arrogance? Legalism? The ability to judge the hearts others? Talk about bad theology and a closed Bible…
If you can at all begin to discern the value of philosophy by the people who praise it, I think this blog is especially telling.
Also note that Tim references the works of Lewis as “positive” examples as a contrast to the “negative” example of Williams. It’s interesting to note that many fundamentalists roared against Lewis’ works on exactly the same bases Tim argues against The Shack. In fact, one of my favorite Lewis works, The Great Divorce, was so controversial, Lewis had to add a preface to later editions clarifying that he wasn’t teaching “theology” but was using fiction to discuss questions of the human heart.
16. Justin
August 6, 2008
11:25 AM
Tim,
I am thankful of your insightful reviews that I find to be very honest and objective in relation to Scripture. You have challenged readers of The Shack to read with an eye of skepticism and compare its theology with the one and true theology of Scripture. As you quoted in your book (The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment) from John MacArthur, “Here’s a simple definition drawn from what the Bible teaches: Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth…Truth is theological.” The Shack was written under the umbrella of fictional literature, but this does not mean that an author of fiction can support inconsistent theology in relation to Scripture and portray the character of God in any which way that he pleases. Thank you for your reviews.
17. Jessica Watson
August 6, 2008
11:28 AM
Kyle, Every form of literature serves a purpose. The Chronicles of Narnia are a work of children’s fantasy. It is simply a tale of wonder that transcends ordinary life written with children in mind. They were not written with the intention of teaching children anything about God, the Trinity, or the atonement. They were written as a work of art and most children read them without even having a clue that Aslan is some sort of Christ. If elements of Christianity can be found in the books, which they can, they happened, but they were not the motivation behind the writing, nor the point. Lewis states this himself in many of his letters. From what I understand about The Shack, the purpose of the book was to draw people closer to the Lord. This immediately binds the author to portray truth in a realistic way, not necessarily with its’ facts, but with the meaning behind those facts.
It seems to me that the meaning of the story obscures the reality of Scripture and this is not just a betrayal of Biblical Truth, but a betrayal of literary art.
18. Jessica Watson
August 6, 2008
11:36 AM
Jeff, Again we must remember that it is not just the facts of a book, but the meaning behind those facts. Obviously you cannot take a bus from Hell to Heaven, as in Lewis’ The Great Divorce, but the meaning behind his allegory is crystal clear and orthodox. The meaning behind the symbolical facts in The Shack is anything but an orthodox God.
19. jeff_r
August 6, 2008
11:44 AM
It’s also interesting to note all the folks coming out to defend Lewis’ works and theology and to point out differences with Williams’. Yet based on their own personal statements of belief, Williams is significantly more orthodox than Lewis. Lewis dallied with universalism throughout his Christian life - Williams clearly repudiates it; Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; Williams states that he does believe the Bible to be inerrant; etc.
Now, there’s no question who is the better writer between Williams and Lewis. And, I suppose, some of the misplaced acrimony toward The Shack is the fault of Williams’ writing capabilities. Nonetheless, there seems to be quite of bit of pathological inference, willful ignorance, and shallow thinking going into the criticisms as well.
Jessica, I disagree. Is it orthodox to believe in the doctrine of purgatory - as is the clear implication of The Great Divorce? So clear, in fact, that the author himself had to specifically issue a clarification added to subsequent editions of the book? Lewis’ story in The Great Divorce is anything but orthodox in either its facts or its implications - but Lewis defends it on the basis of “speculation” as well as on the basis of the intent of the story being about the human heart and its transformation and not about theological issues concerning the nature and character of God, heaven or hell. Very similar to Williams’ own statements regarding The Shack.
20. jeff_r
August 6, 2008
11:51 AM
RE: my last post, “implication” in the final paragraph should have been “inference”. Lewis didn’t intend to imply the doctrine of purgatory (he says this in the clarification I mention), but it was the common inference fundamentalists took when they read it. Thus the controversy and Lewis’ subsequent clarification.
21. William
August 6, 2008
11:57 AM
Great post, Tim.
I think you did a pretty good job responding to those criticisms.
The Word needs to remain central. If people do desire to draw closer to God at the behest of a false portrayal of God, then it’s likely they want to draw near to some God like creation of their mind. People have always done this kind of thing.
Also, all throughout history poor theological shifts rarely show their nasty side for a couple of generations. People may very likely enjoy the way they now see God, and whether they like it or not, their new theology. But, what will the implications of these subtle shifts be 100 years from now?
I would hypothesize, based on what we’ve seen in history, that the effects could be tragic. The Word must remain central.
22. Tom Chantry
August 6, 2008
12:00 PM
Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision …and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not.
Great comment. I could substitute “conversations” for “works” and use that just about every week!
23. Ronnica
August 6, 2008
12:18 PM
Pragmatism…yikes, yikes, yikes! It’s so easy to fall into the if-it-works-it’s-good mentality, but no! Thanks for pointing this out.
Open mind, yes, closed Bible, no. That’s just it!
Kyle, the issue you addressed is mention above in this post, in what he quoted from the Tom Neven review.
24. Ron
August 6, 2008
12:31 PM
Whether “The Shack” or “Narnia”, these are the works of men. I am grateful that God has given us men to examine and extract truths from scripture- even through fiction, but always, ALWAYS, must men’s thoughts be measured against scripture. Whether I read Piper, MacArthur or my other favorite authors I never presume they are incapable of error.
Regarding the perception of Jesus in “The Shack” that so many seem to dwell on:
Rev. 19:11-16 11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Tim has provided a service by warning people of trouble that may lie in “The Shack”. The unchanging God of the Bible gave us Jesus, who showed us a perfect life of love, sacrifice and obedience. That same God will also judge the wicked. It sounds like “The Shack” may have missed some important facets of our great and merciful God.
25. Eugene
August 6, 2008
12:32 PM
In the Christianity Today article that Tim mentioned, it said:
“Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology…”
“The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
Its interesting that many readers love the book for its so-called ‘clarification’ of some major Christian theologies, but when pressed on the issue of right theology they quickly claim that the book was not meant to be a ‘systematic theology’.
It seems, like it or not, the author has offered an explanation of God that many are taking literally. If they were not affected by Young’s god, then why would they so enjoy the book?
And without a doubt, if the words that Young’s god speaks have “weaknesses” or if we have to take them with “a grain of salt” while “looking past some of the more seemingly universalistic tendencies”, then he is not the god of the Bible.
That is what frightens me. Why would we want to fill our minds with the words (however helpful they may seem) of a god that is not really God?
26. Jessica
August 6, 2008
12:37 PM
As always thank you for unapologetically speaking the truth. It may not be appreciated by all but it is by many. Excellent post.
27. ChrisB
August 6, 2008
12:56 PM
I think the defenders who say “it’s just fiction” don’t realize how powerful fiction is. Despite what someone said above, Lewis did want children to learn from his works. He called it “baptizing the imagination” — the idea that concepts get into your subconscious and will emerge when you encounter them again later (e.g., the idea of atonement for sin).
If someone is reading a work like the Shack aware of the questionable theology and trying to discern the bad from the good, they’ll probably be fine. Those who read it as “just fiction,” though, are very likely to absorb these ideas and have them reinforce theological errors they meet later.
28. Jessica Watson
August 6, 2008
12:58 PM
Jeff, Considering that Lewis was Anglo-Catholic, even if he did imply a belief in purgatory,or if it could be inferred from his book, that would hardly make him unorthodox. It is one thing to disagree on theological issues that have been hotly debated by Christians from the three strands of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern, and quite another to develop a view of God that no orthodox Christian has ever had before. Again, it is not the facts of a fictional book, because a work of fiction by its’ very nature is going to have elements that are not true, but the meaning behind those facts, that must be true.
Lewis’ meaning about right and wrong, good and evil were impeccably orthodox.
29. Jonathan Foster
August 6, 2008
1:01 PM
jeff_r,
In my opinion, modalism is a greater error than the denial of inerrancy or universalism. Heresy in theology proper strikes at the “vitals of religion” in a way that bibliological or soteriological errors do not necessarily.
30. Jessica Watson
August 6, 2008
1:05 PM
Chris B, Let me clarify what I said about Lewis and Narnia. I did not mean that children won’t learn from these books, just that it wasn’t the whole point of the book. Lewis did not start writing these books saying to himself how can I teach children theology? He started with the image of a faun carrying parcels in the snow and went from there. The theology found its’ way into the book, I am certainly not denying that, but it was not the intention of his writing. If he had started with the goal of catechizing children, well, that would have been bad art, and Lewis himself was strongly opposed to bad art.
31. Jackie
August 6, 2008
1:11 PM
This isn’t really a comment on this article, but I thought I would share a clever little story from my week. It was too good to keep to myself. In our city, there is a well traveled main road that many people drive on every single day. There is also a church along that road. The church has a marquee out front that always says - ‘Finally, a liberal church!’ It is a baptist church of some sort. We drive by it pretty often. One day last week, as we drove by, there was an additional sign next to the permanent marquee. This one said, ‘We don’t approve of torture’. (Who does really?) I assume it was a somewhat veiled message pointing perhaps to Guantanamo or Iraq and various forms of interrogation. As we drove by, my husband said in response to the signs, “They should have one up there that says ‘We don’t condone the crucifixion’.” LOL. I loved his wisdom and humor at that moment, and thought you would too.
32. jeff_r
August 6, 2008
1:15 PM
Jonathan -
I don’t disagree, but to the point of this dialogue, it’s a moot point.
The issue is that Williams has denounced clearly and explicitly all the supposed theological heresies he’s accused of “implying” in The Shack and that he’s dealing with an entirely different topic regarding human suffering and the ultimate goodness and provision of God. Folks are getting wrapped around the axle on issues that are both secondary to theme of The Shack and are unintended/denounced by the author.
I would nuance the issue re:modalism with the fact that any non-systematic treatment of the Trinity tends to lean toward one of the classic trinitarian heresies. Pick up any contemporary Christian novelization in which one or more of the godhead make an appearance as a character and I think you’ll see the point.
This doesn’t excuse poor theology, of course, but it makes the point that in countless sermons, lessons, books (fiction or non-) Christians are exposed to oversimplified explanations or depictions of the Trinity that, arguably, could distort one’s understanding of that important doctrine. Yet for some reason (jealousy, pettiness, boredom?) some folks have picked this otherwise charming and helpful book, The Shack as the poster child for not getting the Trinity “just right” in a work not intended as a theological treatment of the subject.
33. Chuck
August 6, 2008
1:28 PM
“If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.”
I’m wondering if you mean by this statement that: anything that stirs emotions in our life outside of reading the Bible is not good. That is - we shouldn’t watch, read, listen to, practice anything that stirs emotions. Are you saying God cannot accomplish his end through any means outside of the Bible?
34. Ken
August 6, 2008
1:41 PM
and we should apply Biblical discernment on everything, not just some things. Thus, we should always have our “Bible open”, God would not want it any other way.
35. Erik Dungan
August 6, 2008
1:44 PM
Tim,
Thank you for this post and your previous review. I am still trying to make sense of this book, but for the most part I agree with your analysis.
I have 2 questions:
Is your main concern with The Shack’s theology–or the way The Shack’s theology is presented? Most of the arguments against this book focus on the presentation of the theology or on tertiary aspects that I doubt the author intended. I’m just curious to know if you find gaping holes in the central theme/theology of the book.
If the author is sincere in framing the book as a parable, do you feel there is a line of “acceptable symbolism” that should not be crossed when presenting theological parables? After all, Jesus presented God in various human forms when telling parables.
Thanks again.
36. Marshall
August 6, 2008
1:56 PM
All I can say is, thank you. I plan to read the book for the first time within the next week or so. I can’t say I agree or disagree with you at this point because I want to understand the context from the book itself. Having said that, your arguments against the theology in it, at least from the passages you have referenced, are well put. Thank you for your discernment.
Marshall
37. Randy Brandt
August 6, 2008
1:57 PM
Yet based on their own personal statements of belief, Williams is significantly more orthodox than Lewis.
Jeff, I assume you mean Paul William Young. A close family friend of Young’s has detailed Young’s embrace of Christian universalism, as I reference in my review. Young and his co-authors can denounce and renounce anything they want, but the book teaches universalism, plain and simple. I quote the following in my review:
“I am now fully reconciled to the world.”
“The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?”
“The whole world, Mack (192).
That’s universalism, unless you totally redefine “reconciled,” which apparently they must do.
I won’t waste a bunch of space here quoting my stuff about fiction and Narnia related to The Shack. but I also wrote a recent rant called Theological Fiction: Should There Be Boundaries? for anyone interested.
38. Jess
August 6, 2008
2:39 PM
I recently found your site after it was referred to in a personal review I read of The Shack on I-tunes Audiobooks. I am just starting the book after many of my friends have read it and rave about it. Thank you for laying out a biblical perspective on the theology so obviously found in the book. I am sharing your site with friends and family. Your critiques are much appreciated!!!
39. David Bissett
August 6, 2008
3:23 PM
Tim, Great review — charitable and biblically faithful. Thanks for making it available. Hang in there, bro.
40. Linda Rios
August 6, 2008
3:41 PM
Hello Tim,
Thanks for your ministry and review of “The Shack.” Though I have not personally read the book myself I have read other reviews from trusted Theologians and have read that the book undermines Scripture and the Church, mutilates the Gospel and offers up wrong teachings on the Godhead as well as offering up a New Age understanding of God.
It’s hard to find time to personally read and review all the dangerous books out there in the Christian market, so I appreciate your ministry to us all. My husband is youth pastor at our home church and we have created a personal blog for the teens to use as a resource to help them in their Christian walk. We have included your website as a resource for them. http://preachthescriptures.blogspot.com/
Thanks brother!
Steve and Linda
41. Bob Comarsh
August 6, 2008
3:41 PM
Tim,
I am very thankful for your review. It is balanced and biblical. And thank you for making a printable version available so that it can be given out as a resource.
I am curious why those who love this book and are moved “closer to God” are so unwilling to just take a look at where the book strays away from biblical theology? At once, they are putting their experience from the book ahead of scripture. And, I’m seeing from some of the comments above, they are at once defensive about the subject. I’m currently dealing with these types of reaction from a cousin who has read the book and is unwilling to read your review or any other biblically based commentary on the book.
The most frightening part about all of this is the way it seems to be spreading like wildfire through churches and endorsed by pastors. It is beginning to spread in our fellowship and it has prompted our senior pastor to write his own review as well as planning to address it from the pulpit in the coming weeks.
Kepp up the good work brother! Glory to God!
42. Candy
August 6, 2008
3:42 PM
Tim, I heard you on Pilgrim Radio which was founded and transmits from the next town south of Reno. The voice of Tim Challies! Not to be easily forgotten. :)
This review/update comes at a good time. My little ladies book club (hosted by the little lady up the street) has decided to read The Shack as raved about by one of the ladies. I hated the book, but am looking forward to gleaning lots of insight to share before our next book club, and presenting the true Gospel to the group. So…thanks.
43. Thomas Slawson
August 6, 2008
3:59 PM
Tim,
I am in 100% agreement with you. People need to understand it’s not about the warm fuzzies or how something “touches” us or makes us “feel.” It’s about truth. The Shack depicts God in a way that is pure idolatry. God is being represented as someone contrary to who he is. Lest people forget when Israel built the golden calf and worshipped it, they claimed they were worshipping Yahweh! Yet God didn’t say to the Israelites “Well, I can see how this was meaningful to you, and really touched you, so I suppose it’s okay.”
-Tom
44. Phil
August 6, 2008
4:30 PM
Just a short comment (via phone!)from one who hasn’t read the book but -as I outlined in a longer comment to Tim-perhaps has some understanding of the writer et al’s theology. Perhaps Tim would post my email?..I’d encourage persons to check out Steve McVey’s books ’ grace walk’and ‘grace rules’-as well as his ‘101 lies’videos- for some issues of the new covenant etc that appear to resonate. I think Wayne Jacobsen has a connection with Greg Albrecht and Jim Fowler (see ‘Plain Truth Magazine’)-(Re:’ modalism’- that would be heresy -but I understand the intent is a’perichoresis’-the intra-Trinitarian love-relationships-which no doubt informs the nature of ‘submission’within a different light. Re:’fully reconciled to all men’;I’d point out that ‘universal atonement-particular applicationists’(e.g. Shedd)rightly have reconciliation having an objective ground-God to man,paying the debt-and a subjective ground-man to God- that personally appropriates that through faith. I’m not saying the author is a ‘calvinist’but just pointing out that many higher calvinists freak when they see any concept of ’ it’s finished’for all men,as the grounds of a gospel invitation for all men. They naturally tend to think it must mean universalism…well,just some thoughts.
45. Lionel Woods
August 6, 2008
5:02 PM
Hey brother Tim,
Let me ask you something to be fair. Should those who critique the book read it first to draw their own opinions of the book? Most of the commenters that I see on your review seem to have never read the book whatsoever. However some are even using your review to share with others why they shouldn’t read the book. Do you believe that to be apologetically lazy? I do brother in all ways. Many of the people who provide criticism very rarely read what they are critiquing (I mean criticism in the technical sense not the negative use of the word).
I believe this to be dangerous and maybe something you can address. I believe you would scorn a man who would say “I don’t need to read the bible, I will just agree with whatever my preacher says” (though some preachers love it I am sure). If we are going to be biblical thinkers and consistent with our apologetics we must read the works we agree or disagree with.
There tends to be this spirit in evangelicalism today. If _ (insert your favorite theologian) agrees with it then it is good, if not then it is bad. Many have done this with Pagan Christianity, only seeing the cover on blogs and Amazon. Again I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your review as a believer in Christ and if you live in a place where Freedom of Speech is excercised have at it. I guess my concern would be for those who are clueless about the book, its authors and the purpose.
I guess my challenge would be for you to say, “hey read it first”. Many Christians are left with pie dripping from their chins because they have been exposed for not thinking but parroting the response of another. Lets not do that. Lets promote a freedom to think, a freedom to use our brain and then if need be the freedom to disagree. But to draw a conclusion from someone else’s opinion well…. that just ain’t thinking.
46. julie
August 6, 2008
5:29 PM
Wow, just starting reading this book today (have to see what all the commotion is about!), so far there doesn’t seem to be much theology at all, must not be far enough in…
I’ll be interested to read your original review when I finish reading the book.
47. Jugulum
August 6, 2008
6:04 PM
Jake said in #14,
Actually, there’s no difference. Aslan isn’t a Christ figure. He doesn’t represent Jesus, he is Jesus, as He manifests in this other world.
48. Phil
August 6, 2008
6:29 PM
Lionel makes good sense. There seems to be a lot of cliquey’implicit ‘faith”in protestantism. But surely genuine spiritual life is more than functioning of a bare epistemology and derivative ethic. I really think that many ‘reformed’ people have done with reforming. They seem to have open bibles in one hand,’the reformed faith’ outlined in their favourite creed in the other,and a closed mind with which to read the former through the grid of the latter. I’m not wanting to be contentious,but I feel there’s a lot of truth to the same.
49. TJ
August 6, 2008
6:53 PM
Here is what I just don’t understand. If you the reader likes books like this, why do you come to this blog? AND why does it bother you so much what someone writes about a book that if you read this blog with any consistancy, you would know the review of the book won’t be something you like? Just don’t understand.
50. ron
August 6, 2008
8:19 PM
Lionel, you wrote: “Most of the commenters that I see on your review seem to have never read the book whatsoever. However some are even using your review to share with others why they shouldn’t read the book. Do you believe that to be apologetically lazy?”
Speaking for myself I would say no. A good reviewer gains trust with his audience and is able to provide information that tells them something is not “worth” reading. I’ve read books Tim has reviewed and I find his critiques inciteful and balanced. And isn’t that the point of reviewing? Providing an audience with recommendations to read or not to read something?
Regarding “The Shack”, I suppose I would read it if persons in my sphere of influence intended on reading it and I felt I needed to discuss in detail what the problems are. Otherwise the point is why waste your time? No one is saying to burn it, just save your reading for other things. And by the way, this isn’t the Bible. Comparing the Bible as an optional source of reading to “The Shack” doesn’t help your case.
51. ron
August 6, 2008
8:56 PM
“They seem to have open bibles in one hand,’the reformed faith’ outlined in their favourite creed in the other,and a closed mind with which to read the former through the grid of the latter.”
Phil, we all read with presuppostions; whether deeply set, or with little conviction. Yes, I read the Bible through a reformed grid because I believe it to be true, and through that grid I believe I better receive the wonderful mysteries and known truths about God.
I do appreciate the issue of how some people get boxed into a place that seemingly prevents good discussion, but I would say Tim does a great job of allowing discussion to occur. Maybe reformed folk seem especially tight-minded, but I’d say for many it’s for the right motive. We do have our trouble makers, but that doesn’t change whether the view is correct. Oh, and I’ve met many non-reformed folk who are just as grid oriented - it’s just a different grid.
52. Adam Parker
August 7, 2008
3:25 AM
I think that entertainment in any medium has the ability to shape the way people view God. The more emotional a book or a movie causes someone to feel, the more impacting it is on someone’s belief about God. This is especially dangerous when most people are consuming more media than actually studying the scriptures and developing right theology.
Adam Parker / www.compelledbyreality.com
53. Phil
August 7, 2008
7:08 AM
Hi Ron…just to qualify/explain my statement- and I’m sorry if I wongly offended anyone - I guess if someone were to look at my creed, I would be a considered a “calvinist”. But I do think (as a New Covenant “Theologian”) that the creeds etc that have been considered the pinnacle of biblical theology are not where the bible is on the newness of the new covenant. And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent. Too, what the the Reformers classically defined “faith” as - having components of understanding, assent, and trust - often seems collapsed to the first two of those three - coupled with a derivative eithic. But I don’t think the new birth delivers us to just function even of good doctrine and an ethic with which (purportedly with God’s help) we are to pro-duce Christ-likeness. I think we are to live out the ex-pression of the indwelling Christ’s life. He is our Life. Our epistemologies may or may not describe the same (they should do), but they are not THE life in-and-of-themselves.
I haven’t read the Shack and I’m not aiming to post here as for againist. I’ve just noted that some people/theologians who I think (as I reform my own thinking and seek to live up to the full reality of new covenant privileges so I can live a powerful, fruitful life to the glory of God and my own enjoyment as a new creation) seem not to be against the book. I mentioned Steve McVey.
Also - while on the surface it may well seem there are some dubious comments from the book - and I’m not saying there aren’t - I think that there seem to be from many refromed brothers, a quickness to judge the author’s intent, and glean this or that false doctrine - some of which he apparently explicity repudiates - others some understanding of some biblical-theological issues (that those such as McVey teach) would inform those that are merely reading through the lenses of their epistemologies. Such as, for example - how man is constituted and how he is designed to function as a “trichotomous” - how the new covenant is pure grace (and as such is the strength of Spirit-expressed holiness) - law and grace don’t mix for sanctification anymore than justification - how the new birth makes as new creations where all things are new - we have one nature, not two (despite remaining sin/fleshliness), and how there is spiritually no seperation between us and Abba Father anymore (though we may misunderstand the full reality of the gospel and construct a phony veil between us). On that point - when I read Tim mentioning in his review that our sins seperate between believers and God - I think that is product of the misunderstanding of the new covenant. They don’t seperate concerning justification (as I know you agree) - but neither in sanctification.
There are basic presuppostions that some (such a Jim Fowler as I mentioned above seek to correct) are incipient in the “Latin West” via Augustine that are perhaps unbiblical. Such as the assumption that given the correct mental response to the correct doctrine etc, man is able to self-generate his righteousness as a copy of God’s - rather than express the living righteousness of the indwelling Christ, joined in one spirit to his spirit - and redemption brings makes him a coperator in such a process. Many reformed people are bringing up “modalism” with respect to the Shack’s presentation of the Trinity. But I understand that theintent is not any such thing - but a “perichoresis” - something that perhaps the reformed tradition has largely yet overlooked(?) and which informs the nature of “submission” etc…
You may be interested in this comment I wrote elsewhere; it’s comment #10 here;
http://lovebrokethru.com/?p=85
Now as I say, while I haven’t read the book, I note from comments etc (and the associations/support of others) some prehaps resonant issues with the book - that may at least help to explain where it is (in general) coming from. And which are worth all of us considering on the biblical-theological level. The question for all of us is - what is the full reality of this new covenant - to the glory of God, our good, and multidinous (genuine) fruit-bearing after the fashion that the post-Pentecost scriptures seem to indicate?
It seems right and natural to mention these things.
Kind Regards,
Phil
54. Stan McCullars
August 7, 2008
7:34 AM
Tim, Thanks for your continued stand for the truth which in this case results in a stand against The Shack.
More people should read your book (I enjoyed it by the way) to learn about discernment and make practicing discernment a way of life.
Keep up the good work.
55. matt mc
August 7, 2008
7:57 AM
The fact that so many people would want to rely on a work of fiction for their theology rather than the Bible is very sad to me. I believe that this (along with other things I’ve seen) speak to the fact that knowledge is not valued in today’s church—emotion is. This is, in large part, why people respond so positively to “worship” music, and so negatively to preaching.
On another note, for an entertaining time, you should go to youtube and search “My Critique of Tim Challies Critique of the Shack.”
56. Dan
August 7, 2008
8:19 AM
It ceased to be “fiction” when he chose to write on God.
57. ron
August 7, 2008
9:24 AM
Phil, thinks for taking time to respond as you did. You wrote:
“And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent.”
I agree that can be a problem. Calvinism can tend to create an air of superiority, and robotic recitation of its principles. I went through it 12 years ago when shown how it best reflects scriptural truths. I’ve toned it down as time has passed, and am not so quick to disparage different views. I try to show Christ’s love by serving others more and realize that Franklin Graham is as good a model for me to live after as any of my theological heroes. But when theology comes up I am grateful that my mind isn’t adrift with spurious thoughts of God’s sovereignty, and try with love and humilty to correct someones errant thoughts.
So sometimes we need to directly address what is being said about God. I think it’s pretty clear in the case of “The Shack” that the presentation of God could be harmful to people not grounded in the full nature of God as revealed in scripture. The author’s supposed denial of poor doctrine or statements that it’s not a theological work doesn’t matter when it’s being received as another ‘Pilgrim’s Progress”. Tim notes it’s theological fiction thereby advancing a concept of God, and has pointed out enough to tell me it could add to already poor misconceptions about God.
It really is about itching ears, and making sure we don’t become indifferent because we don’t want to offend.
58. rnordin
August 7, 2008
9:27 AM
Phil, thinks for taking time to respond as you did. You wrote:
“And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent.”
I agree that can be a problem. Calvinism can tend to create an air of superiority, and robotic recitation of its principles. I went through it 12 years ago when shown how it best reflects scriptural truths. I’ve toned it down as time has passed, and am not so quick to disparage different views. I try to show Christ’s love by serving others more and realize that Franklin Graham is as good a model for me to live after as any of my theological heroes. But when theology comes up I am grateful that my mind isn’t adrift with spurious thoughts of God’s sovereignty, and try with love and humilty to correct someones errant thoughts.
So sometimes we need to directly address what is being said about God. I think it’s pretty clear in the case of “The Shack” that the presentation of God could be harmful to people not grounded in the full nature of God as revealed in scripture. The author’s supposed denial of poor doctrine or statements that it’s not a theological work doesn’t matter when it’s being received as another ‘Pilgrim’s Progress”. Tim notes it’s theological fiction thereby advancing a concept of God, and has pointed out enough to tell me it could add to already poor misconceptions about God.
It really is about itching ears, and making sure we don’t become indifferent because we don’t want to offend.
59. Simple Mann
August 7, 2008
10:30 AM
I think Tim points out rightly that The Shack is a work of theological fiction, and as such it is one of the many “alternative” routes people are taking in their attempts to “find” and “know” God today. I believe this book is actually quite harmful. I posted three or four articles on my own blog site dealing with this book after someone sent my wife a copy in the mail. I very much appreciated Tim’s review of it, and was glad to have read this discerning brother’s opinion prior to its arrival.
Those who reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ–the gospel of sin, repentance, and salvation–will look for alternates wherever they can find them. For many who want the warm comfort of salvation (like a cup of hot cocoa) without the excruciating torment required of the sinner (that is true repentance), then something of this sort of Christianity-like-lite can be very appealing. But God’s word is very explicit that for those who would prefer delusion to the way of eternal life, God Himself will send them a delusion. It is similar to the way that God hardened Pharoah’s heart after Pharoah repeatedly insisted on hardening it himself against God’s word and His will initially as Moses pleaded for His people.
We live in a time (and perhaps it has always been this way, I don’t know) when people want a quick-fix, an easy solution, and above all something they can feel GOOD about. Whether it is prosperity gospel in its variety of forms, books like this, or any of the myriad man-centered spin-systems out there (Tolle/Winfrey for example), true gospel Christianity is just not real popular. That’s because it does not, will not, has not, and never will elevate man above anything other than utterly depraved and corrupt in sin, and badly (if not blindly) in need of a Savior. Anyone who professes Christ that ever forgets this should question both their sanity and their salvation.
I don’t care how many people claim that this is a life changing book, I seriously doubt that is true for any of them boasting this claim on some book’s behalf. I think it is much more likely that someone reading this book would NOT change because they would have the false assurance that God is just so wonderful and loving that they could continue on in whatever messed up manner they might be in when they arrived at The Shack. I doubt anyone has given up a lifelong addiction to drugs, or alcohol, pornography, or any other form of idol-worship or sin as a result of reading this book. I wonder how many people staking that claim actually changed anything at all about their lifestyle besides discussing the book in some conversations and sending free copies to other people they know.
In short, I would be very surprised if ANYONE has made the radical life changes that I have witnessed first-hand in the lives of someone who has experienced a true conversion to Christ. Why is that? Because that kind of change only occurs when a person truly repents of their sin and believes in Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit can bring about true and lasting change in a believer’s life, but He only operates in those who believe and accept the real gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I’m sure this will invite some anger among some who have read this book and believe it changed their lives just because it made them feel better about themselves or about their idea of God; that is, a warm and loving God. However, though God is indeed loving He is also just; and is as much a God of wrath as of love. Many are willing to love God for His love as long as they do not have to fear Him for His wrath. But to only accept the love of God as good, and reject the wrath of God–which is also good, actually even perfect–is to misunderstand Him and His plan for salvation altogether. You won’t get it.
If you want to know what God is really like, read the Bible. Not some work of fiction by an author that has put his words into God’s mouth, but the 66 books of Scripture written down by people whom God chose to put His words in theirs. There is a big difference.
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
60. Simple Mann
August 7, 2008
10:56 AM
Eugene wrote: In the Christianity Today article that Tim mentioned, it said:
“Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology…”
“The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
Its interesting that many readers love the book for its so-called ‘clarification’ of some major Christian theologies, but when pressed on the issue of right theology they quickly claim that the book was not meant to be a ‘systematic theology’.
I think this is an excellent point. I have read so many reviews and comments by people who felt like reading The Shack brought them closer to God, revealed His love in a more intimate way, and many even claim that it was “Lifechanging”—a word that really makes me cringe because if anything I believe it made them more comfortable in the state they were already in and more resistant to change. Those claims these people are making DO indicate that they are embracing the man-made theology of this book, and that they turn around and defend it claiming that it is a work of fiction (while at the same time holding onto what they felt so moved by in it) should perhaps be the biggest indication and warning that something is amiss! By their own admission they are bringing drawn closer to a fictional god, having greater intimacy, having their lives changed (or more correctly stated, their minds) by a fictional god. It is a delusion!
Defenders of the delusion may call the defenders of the faith too rigid, but it is not hard to see the damage that has been done to Evangelicalism over the past 200 years by a tolerance to the delusions and deceptions that have come against it. The trend of tolerance has led to the demise of sound doctrine as influences that were once rightly identified as heresy or apostasy have gradually over time crept their way into the heart of the witness, poisoning the testimony that we, as believers, are appointed to give.
I pray that there will be a return to sound theology and a right understanding of the doctrines of grace, but it will not be found in books and in teachers who appeal to the wicked hearts of men.
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
61. Dan
August 7, 2008
11:52 AM
Is it just me, or do the comments on this post keep getting longer and longer?
62. ron
August 7, 2008
11:58 AM
“On another note, for an entertaining time, you should go to youtube and search “My Critique of Tim Challies Critique of the Shack.” “
Wow! Someone has a lot of time to burn. I wish I had time to make a “Critique of the Critique of Tim Challies Critique of “The Shack”“. It could be dismantled in about two minutes.
63. Simple Mann
August 7, 2008
1:04 PM
Ron wrote:
A good reviewer gains trust with his audience and is able to provide information that tells them something is not “worth” reading. I’ve read books Tim has reviewed and I find his critiques inciteful and balanced. And isn’t that the point of reviewing?
Heeheehee… I think you meant insightful, however given the current review and responses inciteful might be more appropriate! ;~P
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
64. Roger
August 7, 2008
1:55 PM
@ #61 Dan – Thank you for making me laugh :)
I have a question. For the people who say that this book has changed their lives, how has it changed your life? Really I want to know. Do you find your self spending more time in God’s Word now? Do you spend more time serving others? More time in prayer? I have read several of the 5 star reviews on Amazon and most off them do say “It changed my life” but do not say how. And so I just want to know what the fruit is.
As for it not being theology one Reviewer (M. Nowacki “bocamick”) goes so far as to say “”The Shack” gave me a greater understanding of how God can be the Trinity at the same time. I also gained a greater of understanding of what “God is love” really means.” I guess the Cross is no longer enough for us to understand what “God is love” really means (Romans 5:8)…
65. ron
August 7, 2008
3:14 PM
“I think you meant insightful”
I guess that’s why there are editors! I think you’re right though, it’s sort of an appropriate error.
66. Simple Mann
August 7, 2008
3:15 PM
@Roger,
I share your skepticism with all the folks claiming that they have “changed lives” after reading this book. I would have to guess that the only thing that has changed is their sense of worth because “God loves me, this I know… for in The Shack, he tells me so…”
My guess is that the “changed minds” of the positive reviewers are actually less likely to recognize their own depravity and sin, and hence less likely to seek repentance and truly experience a “changed life”. I think the only thing that has changed is their view of God, but that does nothing to change God’s of them. As Paul Washer likes to say, “If you don’t have a new relationship with your sin, you don’t have a new relationship with God.”
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
67. Lisa
August 7, 2008
3:50 PM
I have had the week off, and have been becoming reacquainted with “logos”. In response to reading the shack, I googled the wrath of God: Found this on Ravi Zacharias’ website, where Jill Carattini said what I was feeling so much bettter than I could!
“The words of the prophet Nahum are one such place of uneasiness. ‘A jealous and avenging God is the LORD,’ he begins. In the three short chapters of Nahum, our comfort level is taken on a tense ride. The prophet holds up a vivid picture of a God who judges and whose judgment brings death and destruction. His words are strong—yes, ugly; his descriptions are shocking. It is not difficult to see how some find the words of Nahum uncomfortable, perhaps even offensive. We don’t know quite what to do with this God.
In what seems like an ironic twist within this message, the messenger’s very name means “Comfort.” And yet I have no doubt that this is a significant hint. You see, God does not play word games. His words, in fact, contradict our own games.
As Jesus stood before the scribes and Pharisees, a terrified woman cowering between them, he called out in a loud voice, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The woman had been caught in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees were caught at their own game. Minutes before, they were convinced that had discovered the perfect trap; they were convinced that they could manipulate words to their advantage. At Christ’s response, they were silenced. Their game was contradicted. They dropped their stones and left.
God’s call to judgment and his offer of mercy are not contradictory. But our moral outrage at God, while winking at immorality in our living, is contradictory.
Let us not run from his message because we are uncomfortable. His Word is sharper than a double-edged sword, dividing bone and marrow. Indeed, correction is never comfortable. But as the woman caught in adultery found, the truth is: the One who corrects us is most comforting. ” Author: Jill Carattini
68. Dave McGowan
August 7, 2008
4:10 PM
A few short comments: One, it is such a huge deal that everyone should probably read it for him or herself. With discernment. But see #3. Two, it’s one thing to view it as a work of fiction. It’s another to assign it to a whole congregation and use it in small groups. That gives it an authority the author probably never meant it to have. Third, most Christians are not as versed on theology as this group. Reading this book without a strong theological framework may give rise to misconceptions, due to poor writing or poor theology. Fourth, the dialog over the book may be it’s greatest contribution. If what Tim or others say drives you to the Bible to find out for yourself what the truth is, then it has accomplished a lot.
69. Simple Mann
August 7, 2008
5:01 PM
@Dave McGowan,
I think you brought up an excellent point and it is one that, although I failed to mention it myself, is one of the reasons I have developed such a complete distaste for the book. It is being used in churches all over the country for “Bible studies”!
And the “theology” of the book is NOT the theology of the Bible. That to me is the biggest problem. I am reading Michael Horton’s “Made in America” right now, and someone else rightly pointed out, it may take a generation or two before faulty theology really takes root. But given enough time, tolerance, and exposure to the elements, it begins to grow its thorns and to choke out the word. Matthew 13.
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
70. songbird
August 7, 2008
7:06 PM
:sigh: Just because the book is declared The New York Times best seller doesn’t mean it really is a work of literary art nor it is filled with authencity.
I cannot give the book a blanket condemnation; nor can I give it a ringing endorsement without making disclaimers. When Young is right, he’s there; when he’s wrong, he’s off.
It is so sad how culturally and religiously illiterate many Americans, Christians and nonChristians alike, are. Why else this book and many books on Atheism are popular? It is not a good sign, since it only comfirms how superficial, imperialistic and intellectually bankcrupt Americian pop culture really is.
71. donsands
August 7, 2008
7:44 PM
“But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.”
Good words here.
Good to read your thoughts on this book again. The Lord wants us to watch and pray, for Satan is subtly moving about, to devour those he can. That’s for sure. How does he do it? That’s the question we all better take to heart, with every book we read, and every sermon we hear.
72. john challies
August 7, 2008
9:29 PM
The argument juxtaposing fiction and theology, or artistic license and propositional truth, is reminiscent of the classical romanist defense of idolatry. The ‘worship’ of a human image, although strictly forbidden in the second commandment, is justified on the grounds that it works in a mediatorial fashion as a sort of catalyst enabling the soul to transcend the finite and profane to encounter Christ. The means - idolatry - justifies the end - communion with God. John Challies
73. don bryant
August 8, 2008
6:11 AM
The thing I love about Reformed theology is that nothing gets a pass. Everything is combed through for the large and the small. The thing I am very uncomfortable with about Reformed theological culture is that it has no Richter Scale. Everything is a ten. The comments on The Shack have feel of “tilting at windmills” to me. This is one of the reasons that people move away. I look at the arguments and can’t help but feel “no big deal.”
74. Phil
August 8, 2008
7:19 AM
Ron, I’ll just bear your comment in mind for the mo. Incidentally, I heard an interview with Paul Young at ptm.org, and, in line with what I was saying in that link I linked to in an earlier post, he mentioned “performance religion” (works sanctification) as of the essence of trying to control God - which I found a quite telling statement of God’s sovereignty (and somewhat ironic - in view of the preponderance of the same among those who epistemologically defend God’s sovereignty most strongly, - with a gospel contra the message of Galatians!). I appreciate your the attitude you wrote with.
What I was really getting at is that New Testament Christianity is all about the Living Truth - it is about the Resurrected Christ as our very life as new creations - insofar as someone “follows” someone else who examples that - that’s good. But nobody can be a model to copy - even if it looks good - if it is not done out of Christ in us, as our very life, but done “for” Christ - it is not of faith and is sin. So the full doctrine of the cross is all-important! I mentioned Steve McVey - you may be interseted in Terry Rayburn at graceforlife.com. He states the creed that he in the main agrees with is the 1646 first London Baptist. I find his teaching of the new covenant great. An he has no agenda but Christ crucified and raised to life for us.
Simple Mann, just a quick comment.You wrote;
“For many who want the warm comfort of salvation (like a cup of hot cocoa) without the excruciating torment required of the sinner (that is true repentance), then something of this sort of Christianity-like-lite can be very appealing”
Re:repentance. What you describe is not evangelical repentance. God requires a repentance - be it never so lacking in “torment”. And God gives what he requires freely on new covenant terms. Receiving a full and free pardon with no works - is the only way to repent. I’d recommend one of my favourites - Spurgeon’s “All of Grace”.
Well, just dipping into this blog. -Best wishes all -Phil
75. ron
August 8, 2008
8:58 AM
Phil, I heartliy agree that it is all about our Resurrected Christ, and I also think it wise to consider others who live commendable lives, and reflect the characteristics of faith. love and humility. I think the scriptures clearly tell us how important it is to set good examples, and those examples are for others to benefit from, not God. When I see someone showing Christ, it lifts my spirit and spurs me on. I’d never use them as a replacement to model after Christ, but I sure do thank God he gives us such people.
But we do need to be careful, and no man (or man written book) should become our source for righteousness.
76. Phil
August 8, 2008
10:53 AM
What I was meaning was that ‘all that glitters is not gold’. I may heartily approve of this or that doctrine(be it never so good)and all righteousness…but still be attempting (even as a believer)to bring forth my own righteousness,FOR God(with God’s help!). I think that the gospel does more than leave us in the futility of that position-in fact it saves us from it-it gives us the very ontological life of Christ in us to live out ‘as’us(Gal2v20)through a (yet ‘twoness’)spiritual oneness. It is altogether more intimate. It is functioning from the Tree of Life,rather than the Knowledge of Good and Evil-where even the ‘good’is evil. Thus,the gospel- a full and free pardon and the new birth, in which we are joined in one spirit with the risen Christ-partakers of the divine nature-save us from sin - being FIRST a reference problem( right or wrong tree)and then a moral one. It causes us to cease from our own works (in both justification and sanctification)that we might express his. Free from law obligations,we are free to the ‘I wills’of God’s new Covenant. An altogether better prospect!…discernment is essential- but we need to be functioning out of Christ in us for it to be spiritual-because,along with the Apostle Paul, we are not capable in ourselves of knowing anything…well,just thought sharing-I hope to your blessing sir.
77. Simple Mann
August 8, 2008
11:06 AM
Phil,
The “excruciating torment required of the sinner” that I was referring to may be drawn from my own experience, but I do think there is some scriptural support for it. It is the beginning of the process of death and denial of the old self, “this body of death”, and it is completely necessary as I see it in the process of sanctification. Perhaps it is not that way for all, but when God chose to pour His grace over me and placed in me a new spirit—one of repentance in the place of the old one of rebellion—it was excruciating to me. It was excruciating to the old self who loved sin, as well as to the new creation who now hated the old one for loving it so and for hating God. And when I look at the lives of Peter and Paul and see the same kind of torment in their repentance—Paul for his persecution of Christ, and Peter for his denial. The same is true of David, and the countless others who have been broken and laid bare before the Lord. I think it is a
I say “excruciating torment” in direct contrast to the “pleasurable comfort” offered by so many Christian-flavored alternatives that are so popular today—the Jabez, Purpose Driven, “emergent strain”, Best Life Now, “Name it and claim it”, tomorrow’s trend included—that in no way seek to mortify the desires of the flesh and stoke the fire for the Living God. I think there are many, MANY who call themselves Christian, and yet have never come to true repentance, and without this “crying out” and “turning away” from that which our selfish natures have attached our passions, there can be no salvation. Have you ever pried something out of the hand of a baby that she should not have, but that she wants to hold on to with all her might? Even a baby will scream and cry as if in pain when the object of their desire has been taken from them.
I think it is the “pain” of letting go that which we have held onto and put our trust in, put in the place of God that I was trying to allude to.
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
78. diane
August 8, 2008
12:35 PM
Tim, I recently heard of The Shack from Dr. George Grant’s website, http://www.kingsmeadow.com/blogger.html on his July 30 post. My research into this book took me to your review, which I greatly appreciated, and then referred to in a comment on Dr. Grant’s post.
Last night I purchased a copy of your book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment and have begun to read it.
My husband is a pastor of a church in Missouri. He’s been pastoring for nearly 20 years. His call to stand firm to the preaching of the Word of God continues to bless me and makes me very proud of him. We have seen folks through out these past 20 years, waver in their stand on biblical truth. We know of professing Christians who are now denying the Trinity and hell and other biblical doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. It is a bit scary to see apostasy happening with people we once worshipped with. I believe there is a great need for your book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. That is even obvious from many of the comments I have read here on your site. So, thank you for heeding the call of ministry God has placed upon your life. May He bless you, protect you, and strengthen you to stand firm in it. And like Spurgeon once admonished God’s servants long ago, may you have “a blind eye and a deaf ear” to all those who try to shut you down.
79. Phil
August 8, 2008
2:39 PM
Simple Mann-I’m tediously typing on my phone-having lost a previous attempt-so forgive my brevity/lack of explanation. I know where you’re coming from from personal experience,but any struggles in coming to Christ we had were not requirements but due to our unbelief. God says ‘I’ll give you a full pardon freely-bought without money or price-but we want to offer our repentance-our fleshly reformations-to qualify ourselves for the gift!But receive that way,and God gives repentance in the same act. Re: sanctification-i think reformed theology has fallen here(apart from MLJ?). Please my friend,have a look at McVey’s books ‘grace walk’ and ’ grace rules ‘and Terry Rayburns audio collection. Suffice it to say here that the old man is already dead-we are one nature not two(as trichotomous beings)who have been made righteous in our spirits,to progressively permeate our souls. The body of sin has been circumcised. The new man has been raised to life. The only way to put off the misdeeds of the flesh is-realizing this-allow Christ’s life to mortify them by realizing ourselves to be those spiritually alive from the dead. We must be free from living under law and its demands for life to do that. Such is the birthright of every regenerate child of God-and the only way for him to bear fruit for God.
80. ron
August 8, 2008
6:30 PM
Phil, do you believe a man can live a life without sin?
81. Phil
August 8, 2008
6:56 PM
No,because the flesh remains with us until glorification and we grow in grace to become in our souls what we are already are in Christ. But I don’t believe that means that a ‘victorious life’ is not supposed to be possible- and should be the norm.
82. dwightk
August 9, 2008
9:54 AM
It is funny that the author tries to call his work a “parable” as a defense against critics who dislike its theological elements.
Jesus used parables to teach theology.
Jesus’ parables all resonate with “systematic” theology.
83. Simple Mann
August 9, 2008
3:42 PM
@dwightk - “Jesus used parables to teach theology.” Excellent point.
@Phil - You wrote “any struggles in coming to Christ we had were not requirements but due to our unbelief.” Strange statement, not sure I agree. I have known several people in my life who claimed to be Christians yet who hung more tightly to their favorite sins than to Christ. It was not “unbelief” at work within them, causing them to live as sons of disobedience, but sin.
And I do not find evidence in the scripture that if God elects you for salvation, from that point on life is just a cakewalk (or grace walk) with no more struggles or worries. Adam and Eve did not die an instant physical death when they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree which He commanded them not to eat, but the process of dying had begun and would be final when they took their last breath. When physical death occurs in the body, the result is putrefaction.
Now as best I understand it, we who have been resurrected spiritually in Christ experience a reversal of this process. The process of death with regards to our “old self” (“this body of death”) begins with regeneration. Repentance is the first fruit. It is spiritually akin to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the process of tasting and digesting the fruit of repentance, we recognize that we are completely sinful and depraved, unrighteous, and undeserving—and that God alone is holy and just. It is where we begin to see our sickness and our need for a physician. Indeed, Jesus said that he had come for the sick… to save sinners. So the process of dying for the old man begins that is finalized with our last breath. The work that takes place between the moment of our conversion and the moment of our physical death is called sanctification. Upon our death, when our physical body experiences putrefaction (decomposition), our soul experiences glorification in Christ (a completed composition). We are not glorified at the moment of our conversion, nor are we completely free of the struggle taking place within us.
I think the confusion (as best as I can tell) for McVey appears to be a mixing of “legalism” with “obedience” and “discipline”. These do not at all have the same meaning, and while Paul decries the legalistic attitude of the Judaizers (especially with regards to the Galatians), he (and the other New Testament writers) continually urge their fellow Christ-followers to discipline themselves, be obedient, abstain from fleshly lusts that wage war against the soul, suffer hardship, endure trials and tribulations, persevere, run (and finish) the race, fight the good fight, compete like athletes, be like a hardworking farmer, put on the full armor of God, and stand firm.
Since it would have taken way too much space to paste all the scripture references I found referencing these things, here is a list of scriptures that you can look up for yourself:
Romans 5:1-5 Ephesians 6:10-13 1 Timothy 1:18-19 1 Timothy 4:7-11 1 Timothy 6:1-6 1 Timothy 6:12 2 Timothy 1:7 2 Timothy 2:1-6 2 Timothy 2:15 2 Timothy 3:10-13 2 Timothy 3:16-17 2 Timothy 4:3-8 Acts 20:18-24 1 Peter 1:13-16 1 Peter 1:22-23 1 Peter 2:11-12 2 Peter 1:5-8
This is not an exhaustive list. I’m sure there are many more references in the gospels and other epistles that I didn’t take the time to look through, but I would hope this is sufficient to at least consider that there may be some merit to what the Apostles were teaching. And just as Paul taught in the first epistle to the Corinthians, if discipline and obedience are not carried out in the spirit of love, they are worthless. But discipline and obedience are not evil things that need to be avoided. When one understands rightly what our merciful God has done in raising us spiritually dead sinners to life and pouring out His wrath on His own Son in our place, it should cause us to want to be obedient, to want to discipline ourselves for godliness.
If you have ever seen a child that becomes enamored with a sport or even perhaps a coach, you have no doubt seen them practicing and practicing to try and get better. It’s not because they are “legalistic”. If that were the case, they would be honing their skills to be a better umpire or referee. No, it’s because they want to be better players and it’s because the love playing. The same could be said for musicians, writers, artists, preachers, engineers, architects, etc. People who have a genuine love for something they are doing, naturally want to develop, grow, and realize their full potential in whatever pursuit or endeavor they love.
It is this same spirit that works in the regenerate believer who approaches discipline and obedience—not as necessary to be acceptable to God, for only the sacrifice of Jesus and His blood applied to our account can make us acceptable to God—but because we desire to show our love and appreciation to Him. We long to please Him and want to equip ourselves to do whatever work He has for us to do.
But to return to my original statement and my primary concern—I fear that most people (even people who profess Christ) never really reach that point. And the reason being that you cannot fully grasp the beauty and magnificence of the work Christ has done for you as long as you hold on to your sin, refusing to repent and justifying your own self before God instead of allowing the blood of the Lamb to justify you to Him. Sadly, I think this is the state many “Christian” enter into and never leave, and you are correct in your supposition that in this state any acts of obedience or discipline are done to attempt to justify themselves or to clear their own conscience, but not as a result of their overflowing love for God.
Peace & Blessings, Simple Mann
84. Phil
August 10, 2008
5:10 AM
Must be pithy,once more typing on phone. McVey’s arguing ‘the obedience of faith’,over that of ‘works’answering law as demand. Unbelief has always the root sin from which all else flows. It’s not just one sin among many. Again,as per Spurgeon’s all of grace, I was contrasting a works repentance from a gospel one. The only way to be severed from you’re sins is in receiving a full and free pardon,right where you are. If we were saved at all,we received Christ and all his blessings without input ( or fulfilled behaviour conditions)on our part…sanctificationly works exactly the same way. Of course we discipline ourselves,and strive-but where the legalist falls down is that he has lost the full reality of the gospel that enables him to do this. Having begun in the Spirit,he’s entered into a ‘manly cooperation with God’to perfect himself. All he can do that way is multiply unbelief and sin-because law is the strength of sin. Romans 6 is telling us the old man is dead. He was crucified at the cross. The new heart that every person gets at new birth is not an improved heart-but a new one. If,as Lloyd-Jones said,we don’t see that-then we condemn ourselves to living out of the flesh to kill an old man who’s already dead,and to put off (with the flesh!)the misdeeds of the flesh. That’s fighting the wrong battle. It’s futile and aggravates the sin-problem…lastly,no cake-walk-just the troubles shift from being largely self-created to sharing in Christ’s sufferings.
85. Phil
August 10, 2008
7:30 AM
Without meaning to aggravate you,it’s because of these things,that,many reformed have a scheme as you described-a gradual infusing of grace to gradually improve an old nature,’bumping up’our own righteousness in conformity to God’s law,until it’s complete. Now,give or take some difference in means for the administration of that grace-that is the Semi-Pelagianism of Roman Catholicism-albeit just concerning ‘living the life’or ‘sanctification’,rather than justification as well. But I don’t think such a law-grace marriage for sanctification is any more congruent than for justification-‘works sanctification’is not consistent with eternal justification without works.(This pattern for sanctification-within Augustinian paradigms for the constitution of man and his intended dichotomous functionality-I linked to some of my thoughts on that in an earlier post-is probably the reason that Augustine is ‘claimed’by both reformed protestants and some Roman Catholics)…also,just so I can give a bit of context,and show you that I’m not a fair weather sailor on a cake-walk-these thoughts of mine are born out of the crucible of ill-health(M.E.)and much Bunyan- esque struggle. I’m yet a weak person,not experientially grasping what I’m writing about very well-but finding them in the new covenant scriptures as I discover my paucity without them-and am returned to the joyous simplicity we have in Christ that I had when I first experienced something of his matchless grace.
86. Simple Mann
August 12, 2008
12:19 AM
@Phil - I would be interested to know which Lloyd-Jones work you are referring to. I appreciate the discourse; you are not causing aggravation, even if I disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to share these things with someone who does not see them exactly as you do. Concerning Romans 6, while early on it sounds like our death to sin is final, clearly by what Paul says afterward, it is not.
Rom 6:6 We know