What’s All The Fuss About “The Shack”?
Posted by truthtalklive on 9 February, 2010
It’s a book that’s taken the Christian world by storm. Some pastors have had the author (William P. Young) in their pulpits while others are condemming the book’s theology. Is the shack attack warranted?
Stu welcomes James B. DeYoung, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary to talk about the controversy. You can find his review of the book and DeYoung’s theological objections at his blog www.theshackreview.com . We welcome your comments.
TODAY’S PROGRAM IS PRE-RECORDED..NO CALLS PLEASE BUT WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE.
Stay connected!
7 Comments on “What’s All The Fuss About “The Shack”?”
The value that I perceive in The Shack is its ability to get people talking. It raises the Problem of Evil, and attempts to show how Christianity reconciles it with a loving and personal God without resorting to the idea that there are some things God just doesn’t see coming. God’s love, grace, and forgiveness are shown as primary and important in God’s list of attributes, and that’s a good thing.
I do have some misgivings about it, however, and those probably come as a result of my experience in trying to explain science to people whose understanding of the subject comes from movies, TV shows, or novels. People who are unfamiliar with God as He has revealed Himself might be tempted to take the ideas in the book as authoritative rather than illustrative or simply entertaining.
For example, if the reader does not have any concept of God’s severity [Hebrews 10:31], reading this book will give him a warped idea of what God is really like. No book is required to treat its subject matter completely, but this book goes to great pains to describe some parts of God (especially His Triune nature) and never bothers to even touch on this — perhaps to make God seem more understandable and less threatening. Still, it seems a glaring omission to me. One must be careful not to get too much of one’s picture of God from this book alone. “Papa” did not seem very much like the facets of God we see in Ezekiel 1 or Isaiah 6.
There were things that irked me personally but probably wouldn’t bother others:
* the scars on the Father’s hands when it was the Son Who was crucified
* God saying in the book that He never created institutions, where Romans 13 would tend to disagree
* God’s denial that guilt could ever permit freedom in the book, which might be seen to contradict 2 Corinthians 7:10
* a complete lack of hierarchy in the Godhead of the book, which would seem to oppose 1 Corinthians 11:3, John 6:38, and John 8:28
* God (in the book) tells Mack that he never disappoints Him, which seems to disagree with Ephesians 4:30
* having God say “the word responsibility isn’t in the Bible” could lead some to think that responsibility is not a Biblical concept
* God says in the book that it’s not His purpose to punish people for sin
* the book seems to take advantage of widespread prejudices in order to try to communicate ideas about the nature of God (e.g., having God the Father show up as a large black woman)
How about other people? Thoughts?
No new material, Stu? Taking a little break?
…………………………..
I have this book. While reading it I snickered at some parts, I cried at others….you DO realize that this story was never intended to be anything other than the work of fiction[Christian Fantasy, like "Pilgrims Progress", "The Divine Comedy" or "The Chronicles Of Narnia" books]that it is, not as a serious lesson in Christian doctrine to be taken as Gospel truth and used by Pastors during their Bible study groups to help people gain insight of God, right? You HAVE actually READ the book,…right? As it’s a little book[according to bookworm me]it shouldn’t take you too long to finish it and decide for yourself if you want to get upset over the way that theology is presented in a work of fiction, and it’s been out for awhile now, so you probably could just pick up a copy at your local used book store and thus get out of having to pay full cover price for it[smile].
i have read it thought it was a good book i can see where some people can take it to be wrong but people who dont know God or the bible it can give them a better view of christians and an idea of what we beleave it does take some thinking to get past a few things but its a book
John: you DO realize that this story was never intended to be anything other than the work of fiction[Christian Fantasy, like "Pilgrims Progress", "The Divine Comedy" or "The Chronicles Of Narnia" books]that it is, not as a serious lesson in Christian doctrine to be taken as Gospel truth and used by Pastors during their Bible study groups to help people gain insight of God, right?
Oh, yeah, of course. As I said at the beginning of my post, I think it’s useful to start conversation. But people have based their theology on less than even a fictional book written for entertainment, and that’s the only thing that has me lifting a quizzical eyebrow at it. (Which, naturally, raises the question of what mistaken ideas someone might come away with, which generated my list.)
I kind of enjoyed the book, even though it felt too sensationalistic in some places and too schmaltzy in others for me personally. Thankfully, too, it was mostly dialogue, and didn’t take much time to read at all.
What I said within my post #2 was not intended to be directed at you Matt F., but Stu and his guest upon the show. When I typed that post there was nothing else to be seen here at the time, so I thought mine would appear as the first and perhaps only post. My apologies if it seemed as if I was getting “snippy” with you personally[smile]. It was but pure coincidence that my post just ended up directly behind yours.
John: What I said within my post #2 was not intended to be directed at you Matt F., but Stu and his guest upon the show.
I didn’t think so, but I wanted to make my stance more clear in case there was doubt. Thanks for clarifying.
You’re welcome!