The Shack by William P. Young

[rich-in-grace]

Has anyone read the shack by William P. Young?

It is the best book I have ever read! It is Christian Fiction and is number 1 on Amazon for fiction and number 5 overall for ALL books.

anyone here read it?

[middletree]

Just so you know, we have a Books section on this here forum.

I have not read it. Most who I know who have read it love it, but it's controversial. Because it presents God coming in the form of a couple of different women, some people have major problems with it. Others are concerned because it shows God being a God of love, but leaves out His wrath regarding sin. I haven't read it, but probably will once i get past the 4 or 5 books I already own but haven't read yet.

[Andi]

Just so you know, we have a Books section on this here forum.

I have not read it. Most who I know who have read it love it, but it's controversial. Because it presents God coming in the form of a couple of different women, some people have major problems with it. Others are concerned because it shows God being a God of love, but leaves out His wrath regarding sin. I haven't read it, but probably will once i get past the 4 or 5 books I already own but haven't read yet.


That is what I have heard as well, but I do have it on my list to read.

I am trying to think of he board name, but Bill has read this book and really enjoyed it. darn my memory anyway....what is his name? His avatar has him holding a big fish.

Any help out there? lol

[SirMax]

Well it just so happens that Sunnie sent me this book this week. I hadn't even heard of it but I started reading it today. I'll let you know what I think. It came highly recommended.

[Jason]

I am trying to think of he board name, but Bill has read this book and really enjoyed it. darn my memory anyway....what is his name? His avatar has him holding a big fish.

Any help out there? lol

That was bdfwinn (Bill) who chose to be removed from the boards.

[kiwisongbird]

A friend sent it to me from NZ, I've tried to get into it, but am finding it a little cumbersome - maybe I'll try again...

[Andi]

That was bdfwinn (Bill) who chose to be removed from the boards.

He did?

[rich-in-grace]

A friend sent it to me from NZ, I've tried to get into it, but am finding it a little cumbersome - maybe I'll try again...

wow are you sure its the same book? I found it impossible to put down.

[rich-in-grace]

The average best seller sells 8000 copies in its lifetime.
The Shack has sold over 750,000 copies in its first 12 months in print. (This has never been done before)
The Shack has never declined in sales (as most books do).
The Shack has spent less than $300 on advertising.
The Shack was published by an upstart publishing house (founded just to publish The Shack) with only one title.
The Shack was rejected by every major publisher Christian and non-Christian alike.
These same publishers have since contacted Windblown Media to find out their secret of how they got this book to be so successful. (there is no secret- its just an awesome book)
Eugene Peterson asked to have the first printing delayed so he could write a review for the back cover.

You have to read this book. Its just the best!

[Andi]

I ordered it and am waiting on it. Will post my opinion when I am though! ;)

[rich-in-grace]

I ordered it and am waiting on it. Will post my opinion when I am though! ;)

Sweet! maybe more people will read it when you post your thoughts. I know you'll love it.

[TaiAnderson]

Great book. Makes you fall in love with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over again.

Passed it on...David has read. Mark is reading. My wife is reading, etc.

Once you get past the first two chapters, the rest of the book reads itself.

[Godgrl Gomer]

Wonder if Mark will put it on the Book Club List?
Hmmm maybe he wont if he is reading it now. Ugh....stupid me;)

I have never heard of it.
Is the book intentionally Christian? Is the author Christian?
One would assume so because Eugene Peterson is promoting it....but we shouldnt always assume;)

Thanks Tai for the review.
I am intrigued now.
But I dont have time to be reading these books...I have a dead line for my own!!! ARGH!!! :eek: :cool:

[rich-in-grace]

Great book. Makes you fall in love with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over again.

Passed it on...David has read. Mark is reading. My wife is reading, etc.

Once you get past the first two chapters, the rest of the book reads itself.

Tai

Thanks for the post about The Shack. A few people have been trying to get folks here to read it for MONTHS but your post will do the trick I'm sure.

[rich-in-grace]

Wonder if Mark will put it on the Book Club List?
Hmmm maybe he wont if he is reading it now. Ugh....stupid me;)

I have never heard of it.
Is the book intentionally Christian? Is the author Christian?
One would assume so because Eugene Peterson is promoting it....but we shouldnt always assume;)

Thanks Tai for the review.
I am intrigued now.
But I dont have time to be reading these books...I have a dead line for my own!!! ARGH!!! :eek: :cool:

Yes the book is Christian- but not in a religious sense. I've met the author. He is a deeply Christ-centered man who has been healed from more darkness and brokeness than I could have imagined.

[mindyhere]

You all have me wanting to read this one now. I just got the "When sinners say "I do" book recommended in another thread, so will be reading that one as soon as it comes in. I think this one will be next.

[rich-in-grace]

You all have me wanting to read this one now. I just got the "When sinners say "I do" book recommended in another thread, so will be reading that one as soon as it comes in. I think this one will be next.


I just know when you read The Shack you will love it!

[woman4life]

I read The Shack and really enjoyed it quite a lot. And I did find the portrayal of God as a woman a little disconcerting at first, but the reason does get explained in the book and it makes perfect sense. It isn't a book of theology, it is fiction. What I loved about it is that it forces you to think a little "outside" the box we often put God in. It had a pretty major impact on me in that regard. I also loved the picture it painted regarding the trinity and the interactions that take place.

As for dealing with love, the whole purpose of the story (other than to cause you to think outside the boxes we put God in) was love and forgiveness. I don't think the impression is ever given that sin is just fine, so I have no problems with it there. Perhaps if it was a theological treatise I'd feel differently.

My pastor mentioned that a lot of people that had been "hurt" seemed to love the book best. I don' t know if I exactly fit into that category any more than anyone else, and I enjoyed reading it.

--Melanie

[Genna14]

Great book. Makes you fall in love with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over again.

Passed it on...David has read. Mark is reading. My wife is reading, etc.

Once you get past the first two chapters, the rest of the book reads itself.
I'll take it next. :P

I have a stack of about seven books to read before I even fathom trying to read this.

[rich-in-grace]

bump

[silverose]

I'm reading this book and I love it. One of my co-workers is also reading it so we have spent some time talking about it. I have a feeling when I'm done I may have to pass it on. There has been some interest by others.

[R. Smith]

Yes, I read the Shack. When my Church 'had' a cell group, we read it as a group. I love the book, it changed the way look @ things...

-Rog.

[Parrot1965]

I'm reading The Shack right now, and I'm almost done. I had a hard time with the beginning ( Warning: possible spoiler), being a parent of young children, but once I got through that part, it's been a really good read. I also had some "issues" with the unconventional presentation of the Trinity, as several posters mentioned, but in a way I like how God is portrayed. And I have to remember that this is a work of fiction, an idealized portrayal of someone experiencing God "close up." The bottom line is that The Shack is an edifying and uplifting novel that doesn't give me nightmares or "bad feelings."

I wonder what Mr. Young's experiences were that were so devasting, but that he was able to overcome through God's love, grace and mercy? Very inspiring, I'm sure! Does anyone have details?

[rich-in-grace]

Word on the street is that the best selling fiction book, since the invention of the printing press, THE SHACK- is going to be made into a MOVIE complete with a soundtrack chock-full of grammy winning artists. The rumor is that a certain Irish pop singer/ activist may want in on the deal. Not sure who else but it may include some band that "plays in the cold" or something too. Can't say for sure that is just what I've heard. Someone who spoke to the author of the book told me.

[The Unknown Gomer]

Since I'm not much of a book buyer, I was going to pick this up at the library, but it would appear that this is a pretty popular book at the moment, and all copies in the Wake County library system are already checked out, and there are currently 167 people ahead of me on the reserve list. :eek:

It may bypass its "in theater" movie run, and be released on DVD already, by the time I get my hands on a copy of the book. :D

[TN3Dmom]

I started it last week at the beach. It was not really a beach read (too deep and meaningful, I guess). I'll need to pick it up again, when I get the time. Ironically, the only time I get the time is at the beach. I made it to the part where they introduce God. In my head I pictured her by the description as Aunt Jemima. If I recall, Jesus was a hispanic gardener, and the holy spirit was an Asian woman. It's hard to imagine, not because of the ethnicity and the sex of the characters, just because you are not used to picturing them in the flesh (other than Jesus, who in my mind resembles Sayid from Lost).

[jesus loves me]

Look up the names ELOUSIA and SARAYU on the internet and you find some things about these names and 'The Shack'.










s

[TN3Dmom]

Look up the names ELOUSIA and SARAYU on the internet and you find some things about these names and 'The Shack'.










s

Very clever!

[rich-in-grace]

Look up the names ELOUSIA and SARAYU on the internet and you find some things about these names and 'The Shack'.


Paul Young came and lectured at my church and -when asked- explained why he picked those names to use in the book. He met an east Indian woman (while he was coming up for a name for Holy Spirit to use in the book) and since one of the BIBLICAL metaphors for the Holy Spirit is Wind he asked the Indian woman for some words for wind. She explained that sarayu means -not just wind- but the unexpected wind that comes out of nowhere and cools you when its hot. Sounds like he made a cool choice. As for elousia it just means the tenderness of God. Sometimes people try to make more out of this than there is or say it belongs, soley, to the catholic icon of Jesus and Mary- but they are wrong. Read the Gospels-they're full of stories about people reading into and blowing things out of proportion and those same types are still around. The Shack is a great book and perfect for the beach I might add.

http://wiredforstereo.blogspot.c om/2008/02/answers-to-some-concerns-about-shack.html

[Andi]

I got The Shack a couple weeks ago, but waited until our vacation last week to read it at the beach. (yes - it can be read while laying on the sand)

I truly loved this book. I have to admit that I have been deeply hurt a few times in life and have already forgiven the people who caused it (God was one of them as a matter of fact). But reading from another victor's point of view was overwhelming and consuming at times. I found myself laughing out loud, clenching my teeth, sometimes with tear-streaked cheeks, and just out and out weeping at times while reading. I went through more emotions in this book than any other I have ever read. And yes, that includes the Bible.

But - after reading The Shack, the way that I look to God for our relationship has significantly changed. And I know that when I pick up my Bible I will now have a serious change in my emotions while reading that I was missing out on before.

God used The Shack to bring me closer to Him, I know this in my heart. And I am sure that many more will find that God is using this book to strengthen their relationship with Him as well.

My .02 :P

I give it 2 thumbs up and a high five.

[SueQ]

I'm currently reading this....the beginning is a bit disturbing, as it would be for parents. I had heard a lot about the use of a woman as a figure for God and the "controversy" around it, but it makes sense as you read...The metaphor about the bird being made to fly and how it grounds itself had a profound effect on me...Didn't think this would be heady stuff but I found myself having to stop and soak it in...More later as I continue to read...

[rich-in-grace]

I'm currently reading this....the beginning is a bit disturbing, as it would be for parents. I had heard a lot about the use of a woman as a figure for God and the "controversy" around it, but it makes sense as you read...The metaphor about the bird being made to fly and how it grounds itself had a profound effect on me...Didn't think this would be heady stuff but I found myself having to stop and soak it in...More later as I continue to read...

You are right about the woman figure representing the Father making perfect sense as you read the book but many don't read the whole book and are left with a real problem. To get the whole of the book you must read... well the whole of the book :-)

[Linne]

I enjoyed The Shack overall, but found the portrayal of the three persons of the trinity a bit 'underwhelming', not because I object to God the Father being characterised as a woman, but because I found it all a bit trite. Jesus was sweet - but the character lacked depth. To be honest - who could do justice to God? - but it still seemed a little shallow.

However, I persevered and found the presentation of God as all loving very satisfying. I think it puts into fictional form so many great books about God's love that I have read over the years - a bit of a 'potted' version in a way - and I found it very good overall.

My problem is that I would regard it as a book to give to people who don't already understand how loving God is - but I'm not sure I would expect a 'non-believer' to work thier way through to the end, as I almost gave up myself...

I enjoyed it though - and would try recommending it to others, particularly those 'enquiring ' about God.

Has anyone read Ann Rice's fictional autobiography of Jesus ('Christ the Lord - out of Egypt' and 'Christ the Lord - the road to Emmaus') - now those seem to me to be really interesting.

Linne

[SueQ]

I'll have to add those 2 books, Linne. Thanks for reminding me that they are out there.

[w8ing4daybreak]

I enjoyed The Shack overall, but found the portrayal of the three persons of the trinity a bit 'underwhelming', not because I object to God the Father being characterised as a woman, but because I found it all a bit trite. Jesus was sweet - but the character lacked depth. To be honest - who could do justice to God? - but it still seemed a little shallow.

However, I persevered and found the presentation of God as all loving very satisfying. I think it puts into fictional form so many great books about God's love that I have read over the years - a bit of a 'potted' version in a way - and I found it very good overall.

My problem is that I would regard it as a book to give to people who don't already understand how loving God is - but I'm not sure I would expect a 'non-believer' to work thier way through to the end, as I almost gave up myself...

I enjoyed it though - and would try recommending it to others, particularly those 'enquiring ' about God.



LinneI agree. I was a little disappointed with this book too. Maybe too much hype?
It was a good book, but I wouldn't call it great.

[rich-in-grace]

Paul Young author of The Shack will be on the Today Show Thursday July 17.

[sandyandporter]

Just finished the book yesterday. I really liked it. It moved me quite a bit. It had a couple of slow parts and a few weak/heady parts but overall I thought it was a great book. It addressed really well the issue about "why does God allow bad things to happen" which is tough for all of us. Seldom and I mean seldom does a book make me cry. This one got to me numerous times. Well worth the read.

[rich-in-grace]

Interview with Paul Young (Author of The Shack) on James Robinson.

http://www.lifetoday.org/site/PageServer?pagename=tel_U SCalendar

[rich-in-grace]

I agree. I was a little disappointed with this book too. Maybe too much hype?
It was a good book, but I wouldn't call it great.

This book has sold over 2 million copies in less than 2 years. The average "best seller" sells 7500 copies in the life of the book. The Shack has outsold any previous work of fiction in this timeframe. They have spent less than $300 in advertising at the on-set of the book's release. That is ALL they spent on advertising. The Shack has been no. 1 for 6 weeks now and has never had a month (since release) that was not an increase in sales. (No declines in almost 2 years) and all that in a weakened economy.

Hype? ;) Nah...

[Andi]

This book has sold over 2 million copies in less than 2 years. The average "best seller" sells 7500 copies in the life of the book. The Shack has outsold any previous work of fiction in this timeframe. They have spent less than $300 in advertising at the on-set of the book's release. That is ALL they spent on advertising. The Shack has been no. 1 for 6 weeks now and has never had a month (since release) that was not an increase in sales. (No declines in almost 2 years) and all that in a weakened economy.

Hype? ;) Nah...


I pray that alot of the people out there buying it are on the fence or far from the fence and God uses this to bring them in closer to Him. Then and only then will this many copies sold mean anything. ;)

[blue eyed merle]

Word on the street is that the best selling fiction book, since the invention of the printing press, THE SHACK- is going to be made into a MOVIE complete with a soundtrack chock-full of grammy winning artists. The rumor is that a certain Irish pop singer/ activist may want in on the deal. Not sure who else but it may include some band that "plays in the cold" or something too. Can't say for sure that is just what I've heard. Someone who spoke to the author of the book told me.


Perhaps Bono could play Mack or maybe... Mac could play Mack... just a thought... did he not say he could have been an actor in the "mystery science theatre-esque" commentaries on one of the Chronology DVD's?

Anyway... I just finished the book on Sunday evening. I was a tad bit disappointed for I was hoping for a bit more suspense. But it was really good overall. The only thing that raised my eyebrow was what I deemed as possible political opinions weaved into dialogue. When this occurred, I asked the book, is this a fiction piece or an editorial? Everyone has opinions and no one's should be denied. However, putting personal opinions about something into one of the Trinity's mouths was a bit disconcerting to me. Yet, I did not let it overshadow the entire book nor stop me from reading it. I am not a zealot, well, sometimes I am, but my mind is open enough to let others have their opinions.

I am very glad I finished it for I realized I had not forgiven someone and what God said to Mack on the mountain made me pause and confess my denial of forgiveness. The weird thing is, I did not realize this person was needing forgiveness from me until I read this book. The situation I am refering to without details had a whole new light cast onto it after I read what I read. The book is definitely worth the read, the creativity is outstanding and the descriptive wording is incredible.

[The Unknown Gomer]

It only took being on reserve for a month, but I just picked this up at the library last night, and started it at lunch today.

Not too far into it, so can't say much about it yet...

[BJ]

I'm about half way through and have already recommended it to a friend of mine who I think could really benefit by it.

[Greyshades]

I can't even describe the effect this book has when you let yourself reflect on the story being told. I'm a very "deep" reader, and a fast one at that (I read The Shack in a few hours one night), and I love a book that puts me into what I'd call "movie-mind", where I can literally picture the scenes playing out.

I found myself going through every range of emotion in this book. I was on the edge of my seat, then I was captivated and anxious, then I was elated... I cried twice. The story makes perfect sense when you let it tell itself through. The main character's background leads into the reason God chooses to "be" who He is at first, which is explained in one of their conversations. I found Jesus to be just the coolest, most laid-back dude I could ever have imagined. (I mean, seriously, the scene where they're on the dock. How cool is that.)

If I can ever get this book back (it's being passed around right now), I'll be reading it again. If you let what's being said sink in, you can't help but hear God speaking through it, and He speaks right to your heart.

I can honestly say that, second to God's Word, this book has opened my heart up to God more than anything else I've read.

Read it.

[Andi]

I couldn't agree more.

[Jaxie]

This book was recommended at a ladies' retreat I went to in May, but I never seem to have time to read, so I passed by it. After reading what y'all said about it, I'm going to call Scripture Bookstore today and see if they have it. I'm going to my first 3D concert this weekend, and am sleeping in my van for 3 nights. *LOL* I should be able to find time ot read it maybe in the mornings before the festival gates open.

[LifeDvtd]

I'm in the middle of reading it now....it was just somthing mom thought looked interesting and thought I'd enjoy. I had never even heard about it before. So far it's an awesome read!!!!

[The Unknown Gomer]

I'm about 3/4 of the way through it right now. Definitely different!

[Jaxie]

I bought The Shack yesterday. Now to see if I can actually manage to get through it. With four kids 8 and under, I can barely get a shower some days. LOL

[rich-in-grace]

Definitely different! Yes and thank God.

[jrmitch]

We've got him coming to speak at our church in about a month, and as part of my personal homework before reading the book I listened to a recent message he did in Seattle. And, uh.....it took me some time to be able to pick myself up off of the floor. Definitely worth a listen; here's how you can find it:

Go to http://www.crossroadschurch.net/audvid/archive/sun.htm

Click on Sunday "Sunday Archive"

Toggle down to message from August 3 titled "Who is this God, really?"

Blessings to all /Jim ;)

[rich-in-grace]

We've got him coming to speak at our church in about a month, and as part of my personal homework before reading the book I listened to a recent message he did in Seattle. And, uh.....it took me some time to be able to pick myself up off of the floor. Definitely worth a listen; here's how you can find it:

Go to http://www.crossroadschurch.net/audvid/archive/sun.htm

Click on Sunday "Sunday Archive"

Toggle down to message from August 3 titled "Who is this God, really?"

Blessings to all /Jim ;)

Amen, He came to our Church back in April with Dr. C. Baxter Kruger and Jeff McSwain. His story is unbelievable and his grasp on the TRUE Gospel of Jesus is certainly a blessing.

[Ladylouwolf]

The Shack was definately hard to get into..If you have kids it breaks your heart right from the start, getting past that is amazing. As always the Holy Spirit needs to be your guide when reading works of Fiction. All our Pastors seem to have read it. It really is very personal as to our relationship with Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. It is one you need to re-read and maybe take notes. Why not.....I enjoyed it.........GBU Marylou aka Lou aka Ladywolf;)

[Ladylouwolf]

Ok, it was definately tough in those first couple chapters, having kids and all, down right scary...But it hooks you and seriously you do fall in love all over again....Want to read it again and take some note. Why not.....Always ask the Holy Spirit to be your guide when reading anything....It is soooo good to see a book like this make it into the top 10 in this world..Praise God...

[rich-in-grace]

Ok, it was definately tough in those first couple chapters, having kids and all, down right scary...But it hooks you and seriously you do fall in love all over again....Want to read it again and take some note. Why not.....Always ask the Holy Spirit to be your guide when reading anything....It is soooo good to see a book like this make it into the top 10 in this world..Praise God...

It was no. 1 for many many weeks and has sold over 3 million copies with NO money in advertising. I see that as a miracle.

[VerbumReale]

Here is another perspective on it from pastor Mark Driscoll.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y


I have not read the book so I will not say I totally agree with Driscoll's assesment of it. But if what he says is true then I would agree with his concerns.

[Greyshades]

I don't get how these folks call a fictional book heretical. It's fiction.

Driscoll conveniently passes up the point of the book, which is, God will meet you in your place of pain.

It's a shame people choose to run ahead and bash on something simply because it gains some spotlight. I guess they've not heard that Paul Young wrote the book for his young daughters, not for the audience of the world.

Some of Driscoll's back and forth over the "graven image" stuff is really wishy-washy. Especially the "goddess worship" thing. Evidently, this guy hasn't read the book, but scanned the points that everyone else who is attacking it uses.

His point about God not being in Jesus is also dumb. Scripture also says God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. The way he puts it actually gets real close to polytheism.

I think he's been listening to too much Ravi Zacharias.

I think it's probably wise to look a little deeper into this guy. After going through some of the other videos of him, I'm seriously doubting his "authority" and "doctrine". I won't comment on that here though.

It seems to me that the ones who have come out claiming this book is heretical, think that none of us have any real concept of what the Bible says about certain things. Sure, some are still nursing, but there's also a lot who have moved on to meat. The real issues we face today do not center around a fictional book.

I guess he just needed something to preach a sermon about.

[VerbumReale]

I don't get how these folks call a fictional book heretical. It's fiction.

Driscoll conveniently passes up the point of the book, which is, God will meet you in your place of pain.

It's a shame people choose to run ahead and bash on something simply because it gains some spotlight. I guess they've not heard that Paul Young wrote the book for his young daughters, not for the audience of the world.

Some of Driscoll's back and forth over the "graven image" stuff is really wishy-washy. Especially the "goddess worship" thing. Evidently, this guy hasn't read the book, but scanned the points that everyone else who is attacking it uses.

His point about God not being in Jesus is also dumb. Scripture also says God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. The way he puts it actually gets real close to polytheism.

I think he's been listening to too much Ravi Zacharias.

I think it's probably wise to look a little deeper into this guy. After going through some of the other videos of him, I'm seriously doubting his "authority" and "doctrine". I won't comment on that here though.

It seems to me that the ones who have come out claiming this book is heretical, think that none of us have any real concept of what the Bible says about certain things. Sure, some are still nursing, but there's also a lot who have moved on to meat. The real issues we face today do not center around a fictional book.

I guess he just needed something to preach a sermon about.

I am quite sure Driscoll read the book and I am quite sure he is aware of the history behind why the author wrote it. And I have done my homework on Dricoll so I appreciate the warning but I have done my research on him. His point is that the images that we use to convey God mattter, fictional book or not, and he is right. I love how whenever someone dares to be critical of something like The Shack, people who don't agree with the criticism will presume that it can only be because the person didn't understand it. You yourself admitted that some who read this book will be 'still nursing.' I think that is part of Driscoll's point. I think people take the whole idea of God meeting us where we're at to a ridiculous extreme. Of course He comes to us in the depths of our humanity and sin and despair, but He does so in the form of a Savior who bore the burden of our sin, not as a black woman. That God comes to us in the Holy Spirit, speaking to us In His Word and that He came to us in human form of His Son redeeeming us and reconciling us to Himself does not give us license to bend and contort God into whatever image we want. How was Driscoll's graven image talk wishy-washy?? He clearly explained what he meant by graven image and how it applied to the book. Nothing wishy washy about it. And you think it's dumb that he points out the book is written in a way that presents God as not being in Jesus?? I couldn't disagree more. I think it's one of the most important points he makes, and he explains why it's important and that is because it conveys a modalistic image of God, and fictional book or not, that matters.

Like I said, I have not read the book so I am not trying to come across as an expert on this book. I have been trying to decide if I want to read it. I have read some of the positive reviews and even in the positive reviews I have seen signs of red flags. My mom read the book and really enjoyed it, but even she conceded that it could possibly lead someone who didn't know better into believing in a false image of God. People want to dismiss the concerns by pointing out that it is fiction. Yes, it's fiction but it is being marketed as being a fictional novel that contains biblical truths. And don't get me wrong I know that if I read it I would be able to dsicern where the heretical teachings were and would not be sucked in, I just don't know if I want to take the time to read it.

Just because Driscoll came to a different conclusion than you did does not mean you should assume that he hasn't read it or didn't understand it, nor does it make his concerns invalid. I posted the link so there would be some balance on this thread. There was nothing but glowing review after glowing review and I think those reviews bear consideration. But I think that anyone considering reading this book should book should also be aware that there are people who have concerns about it. Whenever there is a book like this people who love it seem to get very taken aback when someone criticizes it to the point that they will suggest that there is some grand scheme to attack it (Not saying you did that). But if you go to Amazon you will see that there are far more 5 star reviews than 1 star. I think anyone considering reading this should maybe read both so they know both the stregths and the weaknesses of the book.

And lest someone try to dismiss what I am saying because I haven't read the book. I am not condemning or endorsing the book. I am just saying that we should not dismiss someone's opinion on the book nor assume they didn't understand it simply because they come to a different conclusion than us. I appreciate that people are enjoying this book and benefitting from it, but I also appreciate that there are people like Driscoll pointing out red flags.

[Greyshades]

Thanks for posting Mark Driscoll's review. May those who nurse benefit. IMO, if he's a good teacher, and that goes for any other preacher, his flock doesn't need red flags waved in their faces.

I'd discuss the book with you, but you haven't read it.

[jrmitch]

Just to give an example of how people who love the Lord can see this from a totally different point of view, Hank Hanegraaff has slammed the book. Yet my pastor - who is on Hanks board of directors; wrote the forward for "Counterfeit Revival"; and is a good friend of Hanks - was moved to tears after hearing Paul speak a couple of months ago; brought him to our church last week; and has encouraged all of us to read the book.

I'm working my through it right now, and while I recognize if intrepreted literally it can be misleading I keep in mind that from that standpoint so can "The Lion the Witch; and the Wardrobe" by C.S. Lewis - yet as a work of fiction it's considered a Christian classic. If guys like my pastor and Hank can maintain fellowship while still disagreeing about the book, then I think the rest of us can as well......;)

[Greyshades]

With all due respect, please read the previous post of mine with a kind and gentle tone, VR. ;)

My biggest issue with the "graven image" idea, is that if it's such a big problem, it doesn't stop with one book. If this is such a damaging thing, shouldn't we be concerned and pushing for a primer coat over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Shouldn't we be reassessing every single song we sing in church? or hear on the radio?

It's a reference to law. It's going back to "Don't touch. Don't eat." Honestly, he would be doing his congregation a much bigger favor if he were teaching them about the truth of God, rather than pointing out one instance of negativity. He could have taught what he taught all the more pointedly about the Trinity aside from the book, and prepared his flock, rather than had them in a position of judgment on something. There's a big difference between teaching someone, and helping them grow into maturity, and simply telling them what to do, and what not to do.

Still, the whole "goddess worship" part is what has me thinking he didn't read the book. Look over the reviews just in this thread, and you'll see the same thing come up, with those people understanding why it was put that way in the story, after having read the whole thing.

Bear with me, I have to quote this for discussions sake:

you think it's dumb that he points out the book is written in a way that presents God as not being in Jesus??

From what I heard, he was saying God was not in Jesus. The book does say God was in Jesus. Scripture says God was too.

"I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me."

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

Personally, I don't care about the bashing of the book. There's two sides to everything, and always two or more groups of opinion. I'm not defending the book. Read it or not. What gets me, is the concentration on it that seems to imply it will destroy people's lives, and send them down the wide road to hell because of a few "storytelling" twists. The preachers I've heard teaching about this all seem to say the same things, and literally sound like they're reading from the same notes. My problem with that is this: If your congregation needs to be "red-flagged" on things, then what are you teaching them that put them in that position?

I completely understand the points they make, but I don't see this book becoming some sort of doctrine, or paradigm shift. The opinions I've heard all seem to go to the same conclusion, that they are now deepening their relationship with God. Not based on The Shack, but based on the Bible.

Aside from all the details that are being pointed out, which are essentially minor in the whole scheme of the book, the main point and lesson of The Shack is not to try and re-teach the doctrine of Trinity...

It's to remind us that as Christians we can let things come in between the relationship God want to have with us. That He'll stop at nothing to remind us to come back into that loving relationship. That He'll remind us that within the dark recesses of our hearts, there's sometimes a place where we hide what we consider unforgivable sins, and that those things can keep us from growing, and eventually deaden us and overcome us.

I'd like to hear commentary on the chapter entitled "Here Come Da Judge". Or some commentary on the very last few chapters, where the main character is led into forgiveness by "Papa", who is now not a black woman, but a male, father figure, who from what I was picturing, looked a lot like the painting on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, with a flannel shirt and jeans on.

[VerbumReale]

Just to give an example of how people who love the Lord can see this from a totally different point of view, Hank Hanegraaff has slammed the book. Yet my pastor - who is on Hanks board of directors; wrote the forward for "Counterfeit Revival"; and is a good friend of Hanks - was moved to tears after hearing Paul speak a couple of months ago; brought him to our church last week; and has encouraged all of us to read the book.

I'm working my through it right now, and while I recognize if intrepreted literally it can be misleading I keep in mind that from that standpoint so can "The Lion the Witch; and the Wardrobe" by C.S. Lewis - yet as a work of fiction it's considered a Christian classic. If guys like my pastor and Hank can maintain fellowship while still disagreeing about the book, then I think the rest of us can as well......;)


I am not saying that people with differing views on this book can't be in fellowship, I was just trying to present a different perspective on it. I will say one thing that I definitely disagreed with Pastor Driscoll about is when he told his congregation not to read it. As big as his congregation is, whether he likes it or not, people in his congregation are going to be reading it. As a pastor myself I would be very open to leading a book-study on it, but I would honestly do so with a very critical eye. I would also be open to share any wisdom that I found in the book and I would encourage people to share wisdom they found also. But I think it is also important that people understand where there might have been some theological license taken.

When words like modalism are used in reference to concerns about books like this, advocates of the book will sometimes say "Yeah but most people in the pews don't know what modalism is." And my repsonse is exactly, that is the problem. If you know what modalism is you can recognize it when you see it. I am not saying that I agree with everything Driscoll says about this. I like him, but he very intentionally paints with broad strokes and goes over the top. He does take the graven image thing too far, but in the midst of that he makes some valid points. When a book like this comes out and sort of takes Christianity by storm the cynic in me just kind of says "OK what's wrong with it?" Books like this engender very extreme responses of either great affection or tremendous criticism and scrutiny. I think people should read these books keeping that tension in mind. That is what I am saying.

As far as the imagery in Narnia. I've heard that in defense of the Shack but c'mon Jim most Sunday school kids can see the biblical roots in the imagery of Aslan.

I can be a bit of a theological a doctrinal prude at times but I think too often the church has become more than willing to dismiss the importance of theology and doctrine as if they are mutually exclusive from truth. Quite to the contrary I think they are intricately intertwined.

[VerbumReale]

With all due respect, please read the previous post of mine with a kind and gentle tone, VR. ;)

My biggest issue with the "graven image" idea, is that if it's such a big problem, it doesn't stop with one book. If this is such a damaging thing, shouldn't we be concerned and pushing for a primer coat over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Shouldn't we be reassessing every single song we sing in church? or hear on the radio?

It's a reference to law. It's going back to "Don't touch. Don't eat." Honestly, he would be doing his congregation a much bigger favor if he were teaching them about the truth of God, rather than pointing out one instance of negativity. He could have taught what he taught all the more pointedly about the Trinity aside from the book, and prepared his flock, rather than had them in a position of judgment on something. There's a big difference between teaching someone, and helping them grow into maturity, and simply telling them what to do, and what not to do.

Still, the whole "goddess worship" part is what has me thinking he didn't read the book. Look over the reviews just in this thread, and you'll see the same thing come up, with those people understanding why it was put that way in the story, after having read the whole thing.

Bear with me, I have to quote this for discussions sake:



From what I heard, he was saying God was not in Jesus. The book does say God was in Jesus. Scripture says God was too.

"I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me."

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

Personally, I don't care about the bashing of the book. There's two sides to everything, and always two or more groups of opinion. I'm not defending the book. Read it or not. What gets me, is the concentration on it that seems to imply it will destroy people's lives, and send them down the wide road to hell because of a few "storytelling" twists. The preachers I've heard teaching about this all seem to say the same things, and literally sound like they're reading from the same notes. My problem with that is this: If your congregation needs to be "red-flagged" on things, then what are you teaching them that put them in that position?

I completely understand the points they make, but I don't see this book becoming some sort of doctrine, or paradigm shift. The opinions I've heard all seem to go to the same conclusion, that they are now deepening their relationship with God. Not based on The Shack, but based on the Bible.

Aside from all the details that are being pointed out, which are essentially minor in the whole scheme of the book, the main point and lesson of The Shack is not to try and re-teach the doctrine of Trinity...

It's to remind us that as Christians we can let things come in between the relationship God want to have with us. That He'll stop at nothing to remind us to come back into that loving relationship. That He'll remind us that within the dark recesses of our hearts, there's sometimes a place where we hide what we consider unforgivable sins, and that those things can keep us from growing, and eventually deaden us and overcome us.

I'd like to hear commentary on the chapter entitled "Here Come Da Judge". Or some commentary on the very last few chapters, where the main character is led into forgiveness by "Papa", who is now not a black woman, but a male, father figure, who from what I was picturing, looked a lot like the painting on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, with a flannel shirt and jeans on.

In response to your pointing out that I have not read the book. Again like I said I am not claiming to be an expert on this book and I am neither condemning it nor endorsing it, I am just talking about keeping things in perspective. I think people like Pastor Driscoll need to be kept in perspective also.

When I said red flags I was referring to keeping in mind where there might have been theological license taken. As far as your question of "If my congregation needs to be red-flagged then what are you teaching them in the first place?" Well, I will ignore the insulting tone of that question and tell you that by not ingoring the book and talking about the book and making pasrishioners aware of whatever concerns I might have about the book, I beleive that I am helping them to grow in their spiritual maturity and nurtured in their faith. I agree that Driscoll is wrong to tell his parishioners not to read it, but I think it would also be wrong for a pastor to tell his parishioners to read the Shack without perhaps showing them how to do so with a discerning eye. That doesn't really address the question of why they need to be made aware of red-flags and what am I teaching them that they need to?? Well, I teach them the truth. Here (http://glparish.blogspot.com/) is a link to my sermon-blog if you doubt that. I also regularly teach Bible-Studies for adults as well as confirmation for kids. But the reality is I can't monitor their spirtual development 24/7 so when something comes up that I see making an impact that I think there might have been some theological license taken with, I will address it. You are obviously spiritually mature enough to wade your way through problematic teaching and see the difference between true and false doctrine, and you are to be commended for that. But do you really think that can be said for everyone whom you worship with on Sunday??

I never said that the Shack would lead people to hell, and again I agree that a pastor telling people not to read it is problematic. I would not do so, but I would tell them to be careful and make them aware of my concerns. In fact I think I may just do a book-study on it, with a critical and discerning eye of course.;)

[Greyshades]

As far as your question of "If my congregation needs to be red-flagged then what are you teaching them in the first place?" Well, I will ignore the insulting tone of that question

I guess I should have said, "Read all my posts in a gentle and kind tone."

The question wasn't directed at you. It was a generalization referring to the focus on the negatives, and the way that someone who does so from the pulpit regularly might just need to reflect on why he thinks that's necessary. I can see how it (my question) could be misconstrued, as it followed a quote. I guess I'll have to start putting some kind of line breaks in my posts, and hope that people understand what I'm doing.

Please keep in mind that I, for one, am not going to be one to throw crazy insults at people. I may be guilty of it in certain circles, but I do my best to either retract, or apologize, if I haven't already said to myself, "Duh, this is a message board." I've seen enough from you to know you're a pastor, and that I need to watch what I say, even in my heart, concerning a man God has appointed. I'm eager to learn brother, not eager to cut.

I probably wouldn't have had much to say about your initial post, had it been from you, and your views, instead of Driscoll's. Even if you said exactly the same thing. In light of all we've already said, I look forward to just that, seeing your personal perspective of it, when and if the time comes.

I said what I said about the Youtube video, because, as I see it, it's flawed in areas. He says at one point that they (that church) will get deeper into certain aspects of what he's saying (about doctrine) in coming weeks. IMO, that's backwards. If he teaches the truth first, and then goes on to point out errors in things, then it's more showing instances of application. Thus, he prepares the sheep to recognize the wolf, even when the wolf is in sheep's clothing. If my Pastor started by pointing out errors in things, and then went into the truths about it later, it would seem as though he were only attempting to validate his conclusions. Think about it, is he going to get into the Trinity three weeks down the road, and then tell everybody to remember what he said about The Shack? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for that to be the other way around, and be going into The Shack three weeks later, and saying, "Remember what we learned from God's Word about this"?

[SacredHeart]

Finished The Shack last night. I avoided all the controversy before reading it so I wasn't biased in any direction, but most of what I have heard seems silly to me.

Still, I have to realize that we're all in different places in our faith, and while the book didn't offend me, neither did it shift my paradigms about God in a dramatic way. It did, however, expand my perspective of Him most beautifully and tenderly.

I found only one thing that I didn't agree with but since my general policy regarding controversial matters is to chew the meat and spit out the bones, it was nothing I couldn't get past.

That said...I thoroughly and completely loved this book. :-)

[rich-in-grace]

Mark Driscoll was invited to sit down and talk to the author of the shack and declined. FWIW

[jrmitch]

Shortly after William P. Young spoke at our church my pastor (Tom Stipe) was a speaker at a regional Pastors conference in Seattle, and another pastor asked to interview Tom on why he had Young come and speak at our church. No matter which side of this debate you fall on I'd encourage you to read the interview (link is below).

On a related note I've given the link to the videos of the service where Mr. Young spoke. If you'd like more info about how you can get a DVD copy drop me a PM and I'll be glad to give you the details. :)

http://ryancouch.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/tom-stipe-interview/

http://www.crossroadsdenver.org/audio/crvideo2nd_WPY.ram

Note: this is the video of the complete service; run time is about two hours. If you wish to fast forward through the worship and just hear Pauls message it begins about 40 minutes into the service.

[pamcharlie]

Great book. Makes you fall in love with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over again.

Passed it on...David has read. Mark is reading. My wife is reading, etc.

Once you get past the first two chapters, the rest of the book reads itself.

I plan to get the book and read it over the christmas summer holidays down here in new zealand hi there tai from pamcharlie in new zealand when are you and david, mark and mac coming back down to new zealand for parachute ?

[HumanityisSaved]

I just found this post and must say that some things are great and others are disturbing.

Hanagraff's one page summary of The Shack is anemic at best. He neglected to tell his readers that although Papa does show up, early on, as a woman He also manifests as a man later. There was a reason Paul did this in the book. Its relevant to his own life.

I am a personal friend of Wm. Paul Young. He's eaten in my home and played in the floor with my kids. In a phone call 3 weeks ago he told me that Mark Driscoll still has not read the book. But Paul is not concerned with the critics. The book has sold nearly 5 million copies and has helped scores and scores of people crucify the god of their mythology and to meet the Triune God that loves and adores all humanity.

It is also very interesting that most serious objectors to the book begin their criticisms with "God the Father is a black woman". Almost all of them mention this first and spend a lot of their breath on it." Driscoll: "I'm not even making this up."

I don't feel the need to defend the book. But I do buy them and give them away- about 20 so far. Its changed the lives of some of my family and friends as they no longer believe in the great ogre in the sky but in the Blessed Trinity that loves them and has included them in Jesus.

I love The Shack and I love Paul too. May God bless this man and his little accidental book.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Here is another perspective on it from pastor Mark Driscoll.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y


I have not read the book so I will not say I totally agree with Driscoll's assesment of it. But if what he says is true then I would agree with his concerns.

The title of that video should be changed to "How (and cause others) to become misinformed". It's Harry Potter all over again.

[HumanityisSaved]

Driscoll says that Paul broke the first commandment by personifying the Father and that the Father is supposed to be invisible and unseen. I have to wonder about the theological education at play here, or the lack of it.

Luke 15 in the parable of the lost son Jesus personifies His Father as the man who lost and found again his son.

Also Jesus told Philip if you've seen me you've seen the Father.

Its a shame to see some demonize a book they have not read.

[woman4life]

I also had a difficult time reconciling Driscoll's comments about a graven image. A graven image was a substitute for God that people set up and worshipped. A graven image (as it was used then) was represented as being true and real, not fictional. If he was trying to make a point about the book, he really put me off from the beginning with that point as it just didn't make any real sense. It was a stretch bigger than the one the book makes as a work of fiction, but he was not presenting what he was saying as fiction. I am not saying he didn't have any valid points, only that he minimized them by that claim.

He also seems to have totally missed the point on "Papa" being a woman. In the end, "papa" was simply a communication method to Mac, not a statement who God is. God wasn't represented as a woman overall, which is made clear in the end. God represented Himself to Moses as a burning bush, it does not make God a burning bush. It was simply His way of communicating with Moses.

It's funny, but if I was going to "red flag" the book, I might have mentioned the situation with Mac's father as it almost appeared that he was saved without repentence (not sure this was the intent of the book, only that missing info. made it appear that way) and that made me wince a tad.

I have said all along that I would not want to base my theology on "The Shack" (nor on any fictional work.) I don't know anyone personally that has said, "Now I understand the Trinity" after reading the book. For one thing, I don't believe the Trinity is completely comprehensible, nor is God, so I would probably point this out if someone said that to me in the first place. What the book did for me was make me think outside of the box I tend to put God in.
When I know something is based on fiction, I feel I can allow some license,
unlike the Da Vinci Code where the book was represented as historical fiction (based on something real ) The Shack was clearly fictional, not theological.

The problem with the way Driscoll approached this book is that those who have read it will recognize the things that were inaccurately represented about it and may then discount the rest of what he has to say.

I also read, "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" and totally loved it. I would definitely not want to translate it into theology, but there were certainly some valid points to the book.

One thing both books seem to have in common was that there is a purpose to the suffering people endure The Shack touches on the fact that God doesn't condone evil even so. The Shack also deals with the issue of forgiveness.

I tend to agree, in this case, that it would be a much better approach to teach the truth so that people recognize error when they see it. I think I learned that from Dr. Martin. If you know the real thing, you will recognize a counterfeit. In this case, it probably would have been beneficial to teach the truth, and use examples from the book (and other places as well) rather than
just trashing the book.

My pastor did do a sermon on The Da Vinci Code. He never said, "don't read the book." In fact, he did read it. His comment was that he could see why people liked the book. He mainly just addressed it's erroneous historical presumptions. I would shy away from saying "Don't read a book" since people are basically rebellious and will want to read it just because it's taboo. It's the old curiousity killed the cat syndrome. LOL I think perhaps the law demonstrates that fairly well.

At any rate, I loved The Shack, but I wouldn't base my entire theology on it and if I recommend it to someone, I am quick to tell them exactly that.

[Sam!]

Every time I see a video of Mark Driscoll, he's yelling at me. What did I do?

[VerbumReale]

Rather than making snide comments about Driscoll simply because he dares to crticise this book why not objectively consider whether or not he has some valid concerns? All of you keep saying that one shouldn't dismiss the entire book because there might be some theological license taken. Well why can't you have the same open-minded and objective approach when listening to Driscoll's comments?? Why instictively dismiss them as out of hand??? I certainly didn't agree with everything Driscoll said, but I think he brings up some valid concerns and issues. And I don't mean valid concerns and issues just in regards to the Shack but to contemporary Christianity. When I "spit out the bones" of Driscoll's comments I see the meat as a concern that it is very dangerous to portray God in a way other than how He has revealed Himself in scripture. With the graven image thing, Driscoll's beef is not that there is an image used to present God per se' but specifically God the Father. This may seem nitpickey, but like it or not it's a valid point. Jesus Himself says in John 5

37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen,

Now again, I don't agree with everything that Driscoll says, but I think he is dead on in his concern over the danger of presenting a visual image of God the Father, when Jesus Himself says that the Father has never revealed Himself in a form other than the Son. That is what Driscoll is talking about when he speaks of graven images, and like it or not he's right.

Now some of you say, well there is so much value outside of the theological license taken, why not sift through all that and find the message? The problem is that so much of the teaching in the moden American church has tossed aside concern over good doctrine and good theology as irrelevant that I really think that there are a lot of Christians who would struggle to "pick out the bones." Where we used to have good expository law and Gospel preaching of what Paul himself said he wanted to be the only thing he ever preached on; Christ and Him crucified, we now get sermon/pep-talks on good advice, or finding your purpose. And any mention of Jesus is limited to commands simply telling people to seek Jesus (which is good) but then failing miserably to deliver the goods of proclaiming Christ right then when the people are seeking Jesus. And so, with their pastors failing to proclaim Christ crucified, Christians are left to "seek Jesus" on their own terms. So they buy popular books. Some may be good, some may take theological license. But don't take my word for it. Look at surveys among Christians regarding their beliefs. A recent survey found that 57% of evangelicals don't believe that Jesus in the only way to salvation. And no I am not saying tha the Shack is repsonsible for this, but it certainly suggests that not all Christians are able to "spit out the bones" when theological license is taken.

[HumanityisSaved]

Rather than making snide comments about Driscoll simply because he dares to crticise this book why not objectively consider whether or not he has some valid concerns? All of you keep saying that one shouldn't dismiss the entire book because there might be some theological license taken. Well why can't you have the same open-minded and objective approach when listening to Driscoll's comments??

The dismissal of Driscoll’s comments are able to be objective if we have seen Driscoll’s comments. We are aware of what he had to say. Mark’s comments are not and cannot be objective because has not read The Shack. His comments are ignorant because they are not based on a first-hand impression of the actual book. Paul told me that he offered to drive over and meet with him about the book and Driscoll declined.


37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen,

Now again, I don't agree with everything that Driscoll says, but I think he is dead on in his concern over the danger of presenting a visual image of God the Father, when Jesus Himself says that the Father has never revealed Himself in a form other than the Son. That is what Driscoll is talking about when he speaks of graven images, and like it or not he's right.

The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother
11 Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. 13 A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. 14 When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16 He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. 17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’ 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. 21 Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’ 28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ ”


Here Jesus Himself has clearly broken the 2nd commandment (as Driscoll accuses Paul of doing) in the line of reasoning employed by Driscoll.


Now some of you say, well there is so much value outside of the theological license taken, why not sift through all that and find the message? The problem is that so much of the teaching in the moden American church has tossed aside concern over good doctrine and good theology as irrelevant that I really think that there are a lot of Christians who would struggle to "pick out the bones." Where we used to have good expository law and Gospel preaching of what Paul himself said he wanted to be the only thing he ever preached on; Christ and Him crucified, we now get sermon/pep-talks on good advice, or finding your purpose. And any mention of Jesus is limited to commands simply telling people to seek Jesus (which is good) but then failing miserably to deliver the goods of proclaiming Christ right then when the people are seeking Jesus. And so, with their pastors failing to proclaim Christ crucified, Christians are left to "seek Jesus" on their own terms. So they buy popular books. Some may be good, some may take theological license. But don't take my word for it. Look at surveys among Christians regarding their beliefs. A recent survey found that 57% of evangelicals don't believe that Jesus in the only way to salvation. And no I am not saying tha the Shack is repsonsible for this, but it certainly suggests that not all Christians are able to "spit out the bones" when theological license is taken.

I agree that the Church by in large is not preaching a correct Gospel. Lets all go read Athanasius on the Incarnation of the Word of God or read what the early Church (prior to the infusion of Greek Philosophy with the Christian message through the theology of St. Augustine –the Father of Western Christianity) in coordination with the Apostolic Witness was really preaching.

[VerbumReale]

The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother
11 Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. 13 A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. 14 When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16 He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. 17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’ 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. 21 Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’ 28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ ”


Here Jesus Himself has clearly broken the 2nd commandment (as Driscoll accuses Paul of doing) in the line of reasoning employed by Driscoll.
.

That is at best a stretch. The parable of the prodigal son is a parable that Jesus uses to metaphorically describe the Kingdom of God and the character of the compassionate father is used to describe the characteristics of God the Father. At no point does Jesus say that the father in the parable is a literal representation of God the Father. Look I will agree that it is probably a bit of a stretch to actually call what the author does in the Shack a graven image. A graven image is more akin to the idolatry of the OT. For something to actually be a graven image I think there does have to be an actual physical thing representing that image, as opposed to merely a desription. That said, there is big difference between an author (granted in the context of a fictional story) saying that God the Father literally appeared as woman, and Jesus using the parable of the prodigal son to metahorically describe the Kingdom of God and the characteristics of the father in the story to illustrate the characteristics of God the Father. Again, Jesus never says that God the Father litterally appears as the father in the parable. It may not be graven imagery, but I think the author does go down a dangerous road.



I agree that the Church by in large is not preaching a correct Gospel. Lets all go read Athanasius on the Incarnation of the Word of God or read what the early Church (prior to the infusion of Greek Philosophy with the Christian message through the theology of St. Augustine –the Father of Western Christianity) in coordination with the Apostolic Witness was really preaching.

Or we could just go with what Paul says and preach Christ crucified. Yeah I think I'll go with Paul (the apostle that is) on this one.

[HumanityisSaved]

Or we could just go with what Paul says and preach Christ crucified. Yeah I think I'll go with Paul (the apostle that is) on this one.

The early Church more clearly understood Paul than you or I do on our own apart from their spade-work. Why would we start from scratch and disregard the life-times invested by the Patristic Fathers in understanding Who is Jesus? If it were not for the Trinity's work in the Patristic Minds you would not have the word of Paul.

PS in regards to the parable of the prodigal v/s the shack- you do know that the shack is fiction right? The dangerous road to me is when I read objections to the shack and they most all start with an objection to the Father being portrayed as a BLACK woman. If Paul had used a white woman instead of a black woman objectors would surely decry the fact that he depicted the Father as a woman (omitting the adjective relative to her color). I think it is very telling that almost all lists of objections to the shack begin with " Wm Paul Young portrays the Father is a black..."

[Valpo]

Perspective from a guy who read the book and isn't as polarizing as Driscoll. Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc. gives his take on it

http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/142011309H2S2.mp3

[VerbumReale]

The early Church more clearly understood Paul than you or I do on our own apart from their spade-work. Why would we start from scratch and disregard the life-times invested by the Patristic Fathers in understanding Who is Jesus? If it were not for the Trinity's work in the Patristic Minds you would not have the word of Paul.

OK I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought I detected a tone of snarkiness in your comment. I guess I was wrong. But I am with you on embracing the work and throught of the church fathers. Of course I don't think that we should just cast them aside and "start from scratch." And of course I am very well aware that they would have had much greater insight into the teaching of Paul. What I meant by referring to Paul was that that whatever supplementary resources we use, be it the church fathers, the reformers or whomever, scripture itself should always be the lens through which we study these supplementary sources.



PS in regards to the parable of the prodigal v/s the shack- you do know that the shack is fiction right? The dangerous road to me is when I read objections to the shack and they most all start with an objection to the Father being portrayed as a BLACK woman. If Paul had used a white woman instead of a black woman objectors would surely decry the fact that he depicted the Father as a woman (omitting the adjective relative to her color). I think it is very telling that almost all lists of objections to the shack begin with " Wm Paul Young portrays the Father is a black..."

Geee, no I wasn't aware that the Shcak was fictional. Thanks for clearing that up. Gimme a break. I think your reading something into the objections that really aren't there. I mean, you are right that if the author had portrayed God the Father as a white woman then objectors probably wouldn't have mentioned that she was white. But that's just something that we need to get over culturally. It doesn't mean that the blackness of the woman was any more offensive. Maybe there is something there but I don't think it's any latent racism.

[HumanityisSaved]

OK I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought I detected a tone of snarkiness in your comment. I guess I was wrong. But I am with you on embracing the work and throught of the church fathers. Of course I don't think that we should just cast them aside and "start from scratch." And of course I am very well aware that they would have had much greater insight into the teaching of Paul. What I meant by referring to Paul was that that whatever supplementary resources we use, be it the church fathers, the reformers or whomever, scripture itself should always be the lens through which we study these supplementary sources. .
You are dead on. We must filter these peripheral works through the lense of the early Church's Trinitarian/ Incarnational Theology as they understood the Gospels and the Epistles.



Geee, no I wasn't aware that the Shcak was fictional. Thanks for clearing that up. Gimme a break. I think your reading something into the objections that really aren't there. I mean, you are right that if the author had portrayed God the Father as a white woman then objectors probably wouldn't have mentioned that she was white. But that's just something that we need to get over culturally. It doesn't mean that the blackness of the woman was any more offensive. Maybe there is something there but I don't think it's any latent racism. All Breaks Given:) I did not intend that as sarcasm just as a point of fact that the parable of the prodigal is fiction too. I think you are fun and like discussing these things with you. I gain fresh insights from this board.

[VerbumReale]

All Breaks Given:) I did not intend that as sarcasm just as a point of fact that the parable of the prodigal is fiction too. I think you are fun and like discussing these things with you. I gain fresh insights from this board.


Good enough!!;) And you too.

And not to drag this out but rather to clarify what I am saying. While yes they are both fiction, the difference I see is that in one fictional context (the prodigal son) Jesus makes it clear that the father is an illustration and metaphor of God, but is still not actually God, even in the context of the story. Whereas in the Shack, the woman is said to be God the Father, granted in the content of the fictional story, but still she is said to actually be God the Father, wheras the prodigal's father is a metaphor in and out of the context of the story. That is where I see the difference.

Anyway that was not meant to drag this on but just to clarify.

[HumanityisSaved]

Perspective from a guy who read the book and isn't as polarizing as Driscoll. Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc. gives his take on it

http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/142011309H2S2.mp3

Hey I just finished listening to this and I took 2 pages of notes on what he said and I must say Wilken is wrong on most of what he said. He even takes a few things out of context. And the penal substitution Wilken posits is heresy -he should repent to Jesus for saying such horrible things about His Father. If I have time tomorrow night I will transcribe my chicken tracks to this board about Wilken's comments.

[Valpo]

Hey I just finished listening to this and I took 2 pages of notes on what he said and I must say Wilken is wrong on most of what he said. He even takes a few things out of context. And the penal substitution Wilken posits is heresy -he should repent to Jesus for saying such horrible things about His Father. If I have time tomorrow night I will transcribe my chicken tracks to this board about Wilken's comments.

That's a very interesting take, you're clearly no Lutheran! I happen to think Wilken is right (on doctrine) and from what I tell gave a fair analysis. But I'll wait for you to post your comments until I comment any further....fyi you just knocked on Verbum's favorite radio show though so no doubt he'll join in for this part of the discussion

[VerbumReale]

That's a very interesting take, you're clearly no Lutheran! I happen to think Wilken is right (on doctrine) and from what I tell gave a fair analysis. But I'll wait for you to post your comments until I comment any further....fyi you just knocked on Verbum's favorite radio show though so no doubt he'll join in for this part of the discussion


It is one of my favorites, although I am quickly becoming as big a fan of Fighting for the Faith.

As far as Humanityissaved's comments. I too will wait until he comments further although it sounds to me like he is mistaking Wilken's beliefs on the atonement for modalism or sabellianism or monarchianism, when that is clearly not what Wilken is endorsing. Wilken's main point is that it is Christ and Christ alone who bore all the penalty for our sin. To say that is heresy is to say that the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian creeds are heresy.

I would love to hear how the Shack's view of the Trinity is more orthodox than the three great ecumenical creeds. I would love to hear how Young's portrayal of the God the Father character bearing on His hand's the same wounds the Son bears on His hands isn't at least reflective of Patripassianism, as Wilken points out.

And to HIS, perhaps you are also mistaking what Wilken is saying for the modern heresy which puprorts that it was only Christ's humanity that suffered and went through death and not His divinity, but that is not what he is saying at all. The same divinity of Christ that Satan appealed to by tempting Him to turn a rock into bread after 40 days in the wilderness also defeated death by going through death. This is much different than saying that the Father suffered and went through death also. The Father's role in our redemption through Christ is the giving of the Son. The Father is the One who demands perfect rightousness, the Son is the only means by which that perfect righteousness can be attained.

Romans
8:31
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

[HumanityisSaved]

It is one of my favorites, although I am quickly becoming as big a fan of Fighting for the Faith.

As far as Humanityissaved's comments. I too will wait until he comments further although it sounds to me like he is mistaking Wilken's beliefs on the atonement for modalism or sabellianism or monarchianism, when that is clearly not what Wilken is endorsing. Wilken's main point is that it is Christ and Christ alone who bore all the penalty for our sin. To say that is heresy is to say that the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian creeds are heresy.

I would love to hear how the Shack's view of the Trinity is more orthodox than the three great ecumenical creeds. I would love to hear how Young's portrayal of the God the Father character bearing on His hand's the same wounds the Son bears on His hands isn't at least reflective of Patripassianism, as Wilken points out.

And to HIS, perhaps you are also mistaking what Wilken is saying for the modern heresy which puprorts that it was only Christ's humanity that suffered and went through death and not His divinity, but that is not what he is saying at all. The same divinity of Christ that Satan appealed to by tempting Him to turn a rock into bread after 40 days in the wilderness also defeated death by going through death. This is much different than saying that the Father suffered and went through death also. The Father's role in our redemption through Christ is the giving of the Son. The Father is the One who demands perfect rightousness, the Son is the only means by which that perfect righteousness can be attained.

Romans
8:31
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

no my beef is with Wilken's penal substitution belief.

[VerbumReale]

no my beef is with Wilken's penal substitution belief.

Then please explain what the problem is. I really think you're misinterpreting him and this is not based just on what he said in that segment, but on having listened to his show for several years now. Again, his basic premise was that it is Christ and Christ alone who atones for our sins by laying down His life on the cross. This is not to say that God the Father does not have a role in our redemption, but simply an acknowledgement that His role is different from that of the Son. I would love to hear how that is somehow more problematic than the distorted view of the Trinity presented in the Shack.

[HumanityisSaved]

Then please explain what the problem is. I really think you're misinterpreting him and this is not based just on what he said in that segment, but on having listened to his show for several years now. Again, his basic premise was that it is Christ and Christ alone who atones for our sins by laying down His life on the cross. This is not to say that God the Father does not have a role in our redemption, but simply an acknowledgement that His role is different from that of the Son. I would love to hear how that is somehow more problematic than the distorted view of the Trinity presented in the Shack.

Wilken is saying that on the Cross Jesus takes my beating from the Father in my place- that God the Father was so miffed about sin he was going to kill somebody and Jesus was jsut nice enough to step in and take that beating in my place. That is penal substitution and its untrue. That is what I'm on about. If I can get it finished I'll post my notes from last night. The Early Church view of Atonement (prior to the infusion of Greek Philosophy into Christianity through St. Augustine) was Christus Victor. That is all I'm saying. I have no personal vendetta against Wilken in fact I'd never heard of him until this post.

[VerbumReale]

Wilken is saying that on the Cross Jesus takes my beating from the Father in my place- that God the Father was so miffed about sin he was going to kill somebody and Jesus was jsut nice enough to step in and take that beating in my place. That is penal substitution and its untrue. That is what I'm on about. If I can get it finished I'll post my notes from last night. The Early Church view of Atonement (prior to the infusion of Greek Philosophy into Christianity through St. Augustine) was Christus Victor. That is all I'm saying. I have no personal vendetta against Wilken in fact I'd never heard of him until this post.

Again I think you are misinterpreting what he said. Are you denying that there is a sacrificial element to the cross?? Are you denying that God demands perfect righteousness?? Are you denying that God would only be satisfied with perfect justice? Wilken is not reducing the atonement to an angry God demanding His pound of flesh, but neither is he going to suggest that God would be satisfied with anything short of perfect and righteous justice. The fact is it would be extremely difficult, during a 30 minute radio piece which inncluded him speaking of the atonement for roughly 2 of those minutes, to surmise exactly what Wilken's views toward the atonement are. But I assure you, you have misjudged them. And yet you are convinced that you have heard enough to label him a heretic in need of repentance.

I find that interesting in light of the fact that you seem to think that I should be willing to give William Young the benefit of the doubt, even with the extremely distorted and unbiblical view of the Trinity that he presents in the Shack. I don't care if you have a problem with Wilken personally. I like his show and I respect him, but I don't know the guy personally. If you can genuinely point out some problem with what he says, I'd like to know. But you're going have to do better than what you can surmise from the few minutes that he spends talking about the atonement in that radio piece. Honestly, I think you do have a personal beef with Wilken. I think you take it personally that he has objectively and eloquently pointed out genuine problems with your friend's book. With Driscoll you were able to dismiss his remarks because he hadn't read the book. But Wilken has. He even said that there were some good things about it. But still, rather than respectfully disagree with him, you come up with some excuse to label him a heretic.

[HumanityisSaved]

On the front let me say that some of what I hear in Wilken a smidgen of hyperbole that I would expect from a radio personality. Such broad statements as “this was the one statement I liked” or “it’s a book about God that gets God wrong” That’s hyperbole and I understand in that medium it is inevitable.

Wilken demonstrates that he expects his audience to have antecedent conceptions about The Shack when at 02:36 he says “Believe it or not there is good in The Shack.” Maybe in a previous segment he took a call of concern over it. Not sure.

03:35 Wilken calls The Shack “more or less a secular novel” This is seems indicative that Wilken has bought into the lie of the Sacred Secular Dichotomy. There is no secular unless by the term we mean a good thing which is spoiled. , “Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.” C.S. Lewis. There are numerous passages that support Lewis’ position. All creativity flows out of the Holy Spirit. Nothing exists that the Word did not create and we may only spoil or preserve his creation -we are incapable of “creatio ex nihilo.”

08:00 Wilken says “...the Trinity you meet in The Shack is not exactly the Trinity of the Bible.” Wilken quotes page 93 where Papa says that he appears to be female and asks to be called Papa to mix metaphors to imply that Paul Young is saying that the Trinity is not Father, Son, and Spirit and that is clearly not what is going on. Paul has Papa show up as a woman because (and this is well explained in The Shack) were he to appear as a ‘father figure’ Mac would have shut down given his terrible experience with his own father. Paul is NOT calling the persons of the Trinity a metaphor –far from it. Wilken does not get the book here. The only metaphor spoken of is the metaphor of male and female in the manifestation of the Father to Mackenzie Allen Phillips.

15:43 Wilken objects to the statements about Papa and Sarayu also becoming human in the Incarnation I agree on the surface with Wilken’s objection. My supposition is that Paul is demonstrating that there has never been a time when Jesus was separated from the Trinity. Imagine the implications if the Word were ripped from the Triune Circle of Life. The scars on Papa’s wrists would indicate not a physical presence on the cross with Jesus (not patripassionism) but that they have never been separated, that Jesus’ suffering was in some way felt by the Father and the Holy Spirit, and Wilken even says that he understands what Paul is doing in the book and then claims to know Paul to be an intelligent man with a sophisticated theology but doesn’t even know he goes by Paul and not Bill.

20:30 Wilken plays an audio passage of The Shack about Mac wanting to make sure that when he goes home he will see Sarayu again and she indicates that yes God is present and active in humanity and creation and that Mac can learn to see God the Trinity there. Wilken goes on to point out that we cannot come to really know God from creation and points to Romans 1. What he fails to realize in his circular argument is that by the time Mac and Sarayu have this conversation Mac already intimately knows Triune God. There is not a need for introductory knowledge on Mac’s part. After all how does Wilken see God? Is the Father, Son, and Spirit manifest at the foot of his bed each morning or can he see (like Paul Young) the Blessed Trinity at work in a mother’s love, a careful surgeon, a welder, a laborer “fresh of the construction site”, in a sunset, or even in a book of fiction? Mac is told to look for God in creation AFTER he already knows Triune God.

23:10 Wilken says “…and I know this relational language is popular now-a-days but what is denigrated is the knowledge the propositional truth the answers…” The reason relational language is popular and always will be is because God the Trinity is a relational God and does what he is. His creation is relational because the Trinity did not create in antithesis to his own being. Paul never implies that we put the Biblical revelation behind that of experience he only suggests that it is possible to have academic knowledge of God and not experience God intimately. I can attest! There is no parrhesia (unearthly assurance) to be found in the academy or the Bible unless it leads one into a personal relationship with Jesus. The Bible was not Canonized and preserved for us so that we could ultimately know facts and answers but rather that in the answers and facts contain with in it we might come to a relationship with the Eternal Son of the Father.

24:50 Mark (a caller) calls the show and confesses to not having read the book so he is uninformed about the book firsthand and his commentary on the book is void. Imagine if Matthew Henry had never read the Bible yet had still written his commentary? You’d hold no value to his opinion –and rightly so.

31:17 Wilken has a problem with page 197 when Sarayu is instructing Mac on paradigms, perceptions, and emotions. She was talking in context of how our paradigms influence the way we see things and that in turn will determine how we react to certain stimuli. The conversation is mostly in the context of how Mac shows emotion to his family and friends. What is most interesting is that Wilken says “let me translate” and then gets the explanation of what Paul is doing in that passage WRONG. Paul is so right about paradigms: if a child believes a parent to be a harsh judge the child lives in fear. If a child believes a parent to be unconditionally loving that child lives in assurance. Much of the Western Christian Church believe that the Father is angry and believes this paradigm about God- “The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and Justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.” Jn. Edwards. Also I just listened to that part again and Wilken gives the impression that Sarayu steers Mac away from Scripture but in the same sequence of dialogue She tells Mac that his view of Scripture (that it is about rules and religious performance) are wrong that the Scriptures are a picture of Jesus. I think Wilken should have mentioned that passage to his listeners. Sarayu speaks to Mac about learning to live IN Jesus through the Bible. I wonder how carefully or objectively Wilken read the book.
33:46 Wilken disagrees that the Father did not abandon Jesus on the Cross. Well he did not and a proper understanding to Jesus’ traditional rabbinical quotation of the beginning of a psalm (in this case Ps 22) with the supposition that those gathered would finish it explains well the statement “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani” From Jesus and the Undoing of Adam by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger p.62 “Far from being a moment when the wrath of God is vented upon the Son, the cross is the moment when the relationship of the Father and Son is most triumphant in the greatest darkness. On the cross, Jesus penetrated to the core of Adamic estrangement, where everything shouts that God has rejected us and abandoned us to the abyss. But it was precisely there, precisely in the experience of that estrangement and horror, that the fellowship of the Father and Son and Spirit stood fast.”
Wilken goes on to say that it is necessary that Jesus suffer the wrath of the Father in our stead for us to be saved. From Wilken’s comments at 34:00 “Because if God does not forsake, punish, pour out his wrath against his Son at the Cross then what is he doing at the Cross?” (said incredulously) This is the doctrine of Penal Substitution and it would do Wilken to re-think some of these Greek Philosophy- based paradigms. It would be good for him to re-read John McLeod Campbell’s book The Nature of the Atonement in which he addresses Jn Edward’s Penal Substitution with a proper Christus Victor view of Atonement. I think I have Wilken pegged as believing penal substitution because no Christus Victor- Trinitarian/ Incarnational Theologian would EVER say that!
Here is how Wilken just stated the events of the Cross. “I really did bad last night and I did so bad that my father got super mad at me. He got so mad at me that he got a baseball bat and was going to beat me to death with it, but my older brother loves me so much that he stepped between my father and I so my father beat him to death instead- isn’t my father good and loving don’t you want to hang out with my dad? Essentially that’s it. IMO

34:32 Kathy’s call- she seems to have not read the book either and then Wilken contradicts his own opening praise to the how the book turns us away from ourselves and turns us to God in order to agree with her assertion that it turns us to ourselves. Confusing.

37:04 Wilken ties comments on page 119 to conversations about the Cross and they are not linked in the book. It probably just a mistake I doubt he would intentionally take this out of context to disparage the book.
These are just a few thoughts as I said earlier. I will add that Wilken begs the question “If God is not pouring out his wrath on Jesus on the Cross then the only thing left to say is that he is putting on a display of love and that is all.” That is not true and if we knew the Theology of the Early Church Fathers such as the Great Cappadocian Fathers Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great, or of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Martin of Tours, Antony, Polycarp, Paul, Peter, and John, Dr. Luke and Tertullian, etc… we would never think of Jesus dying so that we did not die rather we would think of Jesus dying so we DO die. “When he died we died!” Jesus, the Vicarious Human Being” took us into His death and by our hands killed us so that Humanity might be recreated from inside the fall. Jesus, in his earthly ministry, takes a fallen, broken, and darkened creation –his very own creatio ex nihilo – puts it to death and Resurrects if Creatio ex Contrario! What happened on the Cross? Simple- sin was defeated, death was defeated, hell was defeated, the evil one was defeated, and in the Resurrection Jesus rose in human form fully God and fully human in incorruptible flesh undoing the Fall of the first Adam (with federal headship over the whole of creation) and establishing himself as the Last Adam with federal headship over the whole of creation once and for ALL. Jesus saved everyone! He is the Savior of all mankind!

BTW Athanasius did not write the Athanasian Creed. You all may have known that just FYI

[VerbumReale]

03:35 Wilken calls The Shack “more or less a secular novel” This is seems indicative that Wilken has bought into the lie of the Sacred Secular Dichotomy. There is no secular unless by the term we mean a good thing which is spoiled. , “Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.” C.”

Really there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular? So was Jesus lying to Pilate when He told him that his kingdom is not of this world? Cite CS Lewis all you want, but I'll stick with Jesus on this one. This is not saying that God does not reign in both the kingdom of the world and the etenral kingdom of God, but rather an acknowledgment that there is temporary kingdom being done away with and an eternal kingdom emerging.

Phil. 3:20
20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

This is all that Wilken is talking about when he makes a distinction between the sacred and the secular. Now he may be wrong in saying that your frind's book is secular, but to deny that there is a distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, between the eternal and the temporal is an extremely dangerous road to go down.

Colossians 3
1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. 7 In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.

Sure seems to me that Paul is making a clear disctinction between earthly and sacred there. If there was any good in the secular then why would Paul tell us to completely avoid things of the earth?? Notice he doesn't say "not on the bad things of the earth" he says "the things that are on earth." as in all of them.


08:00 Wilken says “...the Trinity you meet in The Shack is not exactly the Trinity of the Bible.” Wilken quotes page 93 where Papa says that he appears to be female and asks to be called Papa to mix metaphors to imply that Paul Young is saying that the Trinity is not Father, Son, and Spirit and that is clearly not what is going on. Paul has Papa show up as a woman because (and this is well explained in The Shack) were he to appear as a ‘father figure’ Mac would have shut down given his terrible experience with his own father. .

Clearly Wilken has a problem with God the Father appearing as a woman. But because I have listened to Wilken for a few years I know that his bigger issue is that your friend Paul would have us believe that God would appear in a form different than how He has revealed Himself to us in His Word. The reason Wilken has such a problem with this is because that essentially makes us the subject in our relationship with God (BTW Wilken never denies that we do have a relatiosnhip with God) and God the object. It implies that the only way that God could relate to Mack would be to appear in a form that Mack was more comfortable with. As if it is beyond God's capacity to relate to Mack in a way that is faithful to how He has revealed Himself in His Word. And I heard part of how Paul explains this by saying that Mack is just bound by religious dogma and tradition, suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity is some man made concept, rather than put in scripture conceptually by the Holy Spirit and revealed to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit through God's Word. Another very dangerous road to go down.


15:43 Wilken objects to the statements about Papa and Sarayu also becoming human in the Incarnation I agree on the surface with Wilken’s objection. My supposition is that Paul is demonstrating that there has never been a time when Jesus was separated from the Trinity. .

With Wilken simply acknowledging that on the cross Jesus is fulfilling God's demand for perfect righteousness and justice he is in no way suggesting that Jesus ever left the Trinity. But the Trinity is three distinct persons, and they each have three distinct roles to play in our redemption. I have already provided biblical support indicating that the role of the Father in our redemption is the giving of the Son. Does this mean that the Father did not suffer?? I don't know. In John 14, Jesus does say that the Father dwell in Him so it's possible even probable. But scripture clearly indicates that it was only the Son who actually bore all of the suffering and the pain and death, that does nothing to separate Him from the Trinity. Your friend Paul may not have meant to suggest that the Father was on the cross, but surely you would agree that to have the Father share the same wounds in His hand as the Son, is at least pushing the boundaries and could at least possibly be misunderstood as suggesting that.

And as far as him not knowing that he goes by Paul as being some indication of his exaggerating his awareness of Paul's intelligence and spohistication. C'mon gimme a break. I am sure Paul has a web-site that lists his accomplishments. I am sure he is a very accomplished writer and Wilken has probably read other things that he has written. You don't have to know a bestselling author personally to know whether or not they are very intelligent or sophisticated. I am sure there are things about Wilken that only his close and personal frinds know that couldn't be garnered from this 30 minute segment and yet you claim to have Wilken pegged after listening to it.


20:30 Wilken plays an audio passage of The Shack about Mac wanting to make sure that when he goes home he will see Sarayu again and she indicates that yes God is present and active in humanity and creation and that Mac can learn to see God the Trinity there. Wilken goes on to point out that we cannot come to really know God from creation and points to Romans 1. What he fails to realize in his circular argument is that by the time Mac and Sarayu have this conversation Mac already intimately knows Triune God. There is not a need for introductory knowledge on Mac’s part. After all how does Wilken see God? Is the Father, Son, and Spirit manifest at the foot of his bed each morning or can he see (like Paul Young) the Blessed Trinity at work in a mother’s love, a careful surgeon, a welder, a laborer “fresh of the construction site”, in a sunset, or even in a book of fiction? Mac is told to look for God in creation AFTER he already knows Triune God.

Wilken never denies that God reveals His goodness in the world. And neither is that what he is saying where you see his distinction between the eternal and the temporal. Indeed Romans makes it clear that even the earthly authorities receive their power and authority from God, thus echoing Jesus' words to Pilate. But there is a huge difference between God revealing His goodness in the world, which I have heard Wilken acknowledge often, and God revealing His essential nature in the world. It is in the Trinity that God reveals His essential nature and God doesn't need to modify that image to make Himself more relatable to anyone.


23:10 Wilken says “…and I know this relational language is popular now-a-days but what is denigrated is the knowledge the propositional truth the answers…” The reason relational language is popular and always will be is because God the Trinity is a relational God and does what he is. His creation is relational because the Trinity did not create in antithesis to his own being. Paul never implies that we put the Biblical revelation behind that of experience he only suggests that it is possible to have academic knowledge of God and not experience God intimately. I can attest! There is no parrhesia (unearthly assurance) to be found in the academy or the Bible unless it leads one into a personal relationship with Jesus. The Bible was not Canonized and preserved for us so that we could ultimately know facts and answers but rather that in the answers and facts contain with in it we might come to a relationship with the Eternal Son of the Father.

Again you are making completely groundless presuppositions about Wilken. He never denies that we are in relationship with God. He simply believes that God and God alone defines the terms of that relatiosnhip. Again because I have listened to more than one segment of Wliken I know that he definitely believes and acknowledges a relational side to God. One of his biggest beefs with contemporary preaching is that it has become to knowledge and information based. Preachers are more interested in giving advice than they are procliaming a real word of hope, comfort and promise from God. Wilken says that through the preacher God speaks to us and comforts us and reminds us that through the blood of Christ He has claimed us as His own. Clearly he acknowledges and embraces a relational side to God. But again you have to listen to more than one segment to see that.

.


33:46 Wilken disagrees that the Father did not abandon Jesus on the Cross. Well he did not and a proper understanding to Jesus’ traditional rabbinical quotation of the beginning of a psalm (in this case Ps 22) with the supposition that those gathered would finish it explains well the statement “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani” From Jesus and the Undoing of Adam by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger p.62 .”
!
.

So the Father did not forske Jesus at the cross?? Well then was Jesus just delusional when He used the word forsaken?? Even in exrpessing his theory your Dr Kruger uses the words abandonment, estrangement and horror clearly this strongly implies that there was a forsaking taking place. It doesn't necessarily negate the rest of what he said, it just suggests that in that dark moment of despair and abandonment the Father and the Son were actually in fellowship. Where Dr Kruger is wrong is in his denial that Jesus bore God's wrath on the cross. Is the penalty for sin God's wrath?? I would hope you would say yes. Well then what does Paul mean in 2 Corinthians when he wrote that Jesus actually became sin on our behalf? To deny that Jesus bore God's wrath is to deny that He became sin. It is to deny that He bore the penalty that we all deserve. Anything short of God's wrath being accomplished on the cross, is to suggest that atonement was not accomplished on the cross. In Galatians Paul says that Christ actually became a curse for us. And to say that God's wrath was bore on the cross is in no way a denial of Christus victor. Christus Victor is the concept of the eschatological drama of redemption which includes the Father giving the Son and the Son giving of Himself by bearing the punishment that humanity deserved. Your assesment of how Wilken defines the work of the cross is completely and utterly mistaken so I hate to break it to you but you do not have him pegged. Again, all he is saying with his insistence that on the cross God's wrath was bore is again that God is not only merciful and loving enough to send His Son, but that He also demands perfect righteousness and perfect justice. There is nothing, I repeat nothing in Wilken's words that even remotely suggest that he is portraying the divine work of atonement in a way that is even remotely reflective of your ridiculous illustration. He is not talking about a bitter, angry God demanding His pound of flesh. He is talking about a perfect God who seeks to reconcile His fallen creation, but who also refuses to be satisfied with anything other than perfect justice, even if it means His Son whom He loves infinitely becoming a curse and bearing His wrath. But again you have to listen to more than one segment to get that.


What happened on the Cross? Simple- sin was defeated, death was defeated, hell was defeated, the evil one was defeated, and in the Resurrection Jesus rose in human form fully God and fully human in incorruptible flesh undoing the Fall of the first Adam (with federal headship over the whole of creation) and establishing himself as the Last Adam with federal headship over the whole of creation once and for ALL. Jesus saved everyone! He is the Savior of all mankind!

Indeed!!! Amen and amen. And I have heard Wilken on several occasion speak in just those terms using just that language. There is nothing in Wilken's insistence that upon the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God in our place that would deny this. But again, you have to listen to more than one segment to get this.

I really don't want to drag this out any more. Just suffice it to say that your assessment of Wilken is way off base. You do not have him pegged. He is no heretic. But you have clearly decided that he is and maybe you have decided I am, I don't know. Whatever.

I am not saying that there isn't some problems and inconsistencies with Wilken's thoughts on the Shack. And you know what, unlike Driscoll, I think Wilken would be very open to discussing this with Paul. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be very open to having him on the show. Maybe you could suggest this to Paul. But I do think that you have mistaken Wilken's intent here.

[VerbumReale]

HIS,
Look, you may not like Wilken's question but he is absolutely right in pointing out that a denial of substitutionary atonement leaves our sins unatoned for. You seem to have bought into the myth that among all of the different atonement theories someone has encapsulated every element and explanation of the atonement. If our sins are not being atoned for on the cross then how and when are they?? Or are they?? If God's wrath is not bore on the cross then where and how is it?? Or is it???

You seem to think that substitutionary atonement makes God into a vindictive tyrant. Well explain to me how a denial of it doesn't. As ridiculous, absurd and extremely innaccurate as your illustration of Wilken's views of the atonement is, it at least still explains how the cross is a victory over sin, death and the devil. But to deny substitutionary atonement reduces God the Father to saying to the Son "Look I need you to lay down your life on the cross in order to reconcile My creation to myself. I need you to suffer to a degree that has never been imagined. And in this death and the devil are going to be overcome. Sin will still be unatoned for, but don't worry it will be overcome. Don't ask how, just do it, after all I am Your Father."

Isaiah 53, referring to Jesus says that He was crushed for our iniquities and that it actually pleased God for Him to be crushed. Does it mean that God was pleased because HIs Son was crushed, no it means that God is pleased because through the crushing of His Son, God's creation is reconcliled unto Him, which Isaiah 53 also refers to.

When Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane that if it is possible let this cup pass from Him, what do you think He is referring to? Is there no element of Him bearing punishment on our befalf being referred to there?? Why do you think Satan tempted Jesus to appeal to His power?? Because He was trying to get Him to stray from His path to the cross, because He knew that on the cross the sins of humanity would be atoned for. To say that Jesus is not bearing our punsihment denies that.

Substitutionary atonement is in no way a denial of Christus Victor. It just gives further insight into how sin, death and the devil are defeated on the cross. So I will leave you with this. If our sins are not atoned for on the cross, then where are they atoned for? Where is the comfort of the cross if our sins are not atoned for on the cross?? If God's wrath is not bore on the cross then where is it bore? And how does that not make God unjust? To deny that sins are atoned for on our bahalf on the cross ultimately puts atonement back in our hands, and there is absolutely no comfort in that.

[HumanityisSaved]

Really there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular? So was Jesus lying to Pilate when He told him that his kingdom is not of this world? Cite CS Lewis all you want, but I'll stick with Jesus on this one. This is not saying that God does not reign in both the kingdom of the world and the etenral kingdom of God, but rather an acknowledgment that there is temporary kingdom being done away with and an eternal kingdom emerging. Again I said I can accept the term secular in the sense of Spoiling what Triune God Created in the first place. All things were made by him and nothing was made that was made that was not made by him. But all creativity comes from the heart of the Trinity. There is only one source of love. An athiest that loves her children is sharing in Jesus' love albeit ignorantly. I think you can look at almost any art form or creative expression yes even all aspects of human life and see reflections of God. It is only in severe spoiling is it impossible for us to see. And yes the is a Kingdom Jesus has established and will bring to the full but he is Lord of the Kosmos. He is Lord of all even satan and the demon stand under his authority whether they like it or not.



The reason Wilken has such a problem with this is because that essentially makes us the subject in our relationship with God (BTW Wilken never denies that we do have a relatiosnhip with God) and God the object. All pagan religions teach that you have to get to God. Authentic Christianity is the only religion to posit that it is God that has come to us. You see many in the Church don't even know why we were created in the first place.

It implies that the only way that God could relate to Mack would be to appear in a form that Mack was more comfortable with. As if it is beyond God's capacity to relate to Mack in a way that is faithful to how He has revealed Himself in His Word. And I heard part of how Paul explains this by saying that Mack is just bound by religious dogma and tradition, suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity is some man made concept, rather than put in scripture conceptually by the Holy Spirit and revealed to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit through God's Word. Another very dangerous road to go down.

Macs problem is with the religious dogma that; the Father is angry and waits around the corner to thump us when we are bad so Jesus dips a hyssop branch in the mercy seat blood and shakes it at the Father to calm him down once in a while to spare us. I am not saying Wilken thinks that way but Mac and a lot of Westerners do and given Mac's past with his own father Mac needed something different and who are we to say the Father could not do such a thing in a book of fiction.



With Wilken simply acknowledging that on the cross Jesus is fulfilling God's demand for perfect righteousness and justice he is in no way suggesting that Jesus ever left the Trinity. But the Trinity is three distinct persons, and they each have three distinct roles to play in our redemption. I have already provided biblical support indicating that the role of the Father in our redemption is the giving of the Son. Does this mean that the Father did not suffer?? I don't know. In John 14, Jesus does say that the Father dwell in Him so it's possible even probable. But scripture clearly indicates that it was only the Son who actually bore all of the suffering and the pain and death, that does nothing to separate Him from the Trinity. Your friend Paul may not have meant to suggest that the Father was on the cross, but surely you would agree that to have the Father share the same wounds in His hand as the Son, is at least pushing the boundaries and could at least possibly be misunderstood as suggesting that. Agreed but hardly worthy of such a lengthy diologue on a short radio show. Sounds very nit-picky to me- aren't we all- I know I can be ;)

And as far as him not knowing that he goes by Paul as being some indication of his exaggerating his awareness of Paul's intelligence and spohistication. C'mon gimme a break. I am sure Paul has a web-site that lists his accomplishments. I am sure he is a very accomplished writer and Wilken has probably read other things that he has written. Paul has published nothing else- ever. This book was a gift to his kids to help them understand hisown dark experience years ago. He took it to Kinkos to have printed for his kids and they began to share it. They have never spent a dime advertising and even had to self publish. I became friends with Paul about a year after the book was published and to hear him tell the story of how God got this little book into so many hands and how it is bringing healing to so many broken lives is inspiring. I think you can find the other Shack thread and there are links to him telling some of those stories.


Wilken never denies that God reveals His goodness in the world. And neither is that what he is saying where you see his distinction between the eternal and the temporal. Indeed Romans makes it clear that even the earthly authorities receive their power and authority from God, thus echoing Jesus' words to Pilate. But there is a huge difference between God revealing His goodness in the world, which I have heard Wilken acknowledge often, and God revealing His essential nature in the world. It is in the Trinity that God reveals His essential nature and God doesn't need to modify that image to make Himself more relatable to anyone. Paul never suggests that Triune God displays His essential nature in creation. And again Mac already KNOWS the essential nature of God by that point in the book so then why does Wilken make such a big deal about Sarayu telling Mac to look for the Blessed Trinity in creation?



Again you are making completely groundless presuppositions about Wilken. He never denies that we are in relationship with God. He simply believes that God and God alone defines the terms of that relatiosnhip. Again because I have listened to more than one segment of Wliken I know that he definitely believes and acknowledges a relational side to God. I would posit that there is no relational "side" to God. God is love! Relational is what God is. To speak of God outside of the framework of Love and Relationship is to betray His true nature.


So the Father did not forske Jesus at the cross?? Well then was Jesus just delusional when He used the word forsaken?? Even in exrpessing his theory your Dr Kruger uses the words abandonment, estrangement and horror clearly this strongly implies that there was a forsaking taking place. Actually Kruger is saying that Jesus had a carnal mind capable of feeling and experiencing all that fallen Adamic flesh does and in the Cross Jesus penetrates us to the core of our very darkened fallen being and refuses to believe the lie of it all and remains the Fathers eternal faithful Son thus undoing the Fall. That's about all I could post of his chapter on that subject but you can get the book it is excellent and btw Kruger studied under one of the foremost theologians of the 20th century.

It doesn't necessarily negate the rest of what he said, it just suggests that in that dark moment of despair and abandonment the Father and the Son were actually in fellowship. Where Dr Kruger is wrong is in his denial that Jesus bore God's wrath on the cross. Is the penalty for sin God's wrath?? I'm new here so maybe someone could show me that in the Bible. That the penalty for sin is God's wrath. I'm not being snarky I just don't know that it's there.

I would hope you would say yes. Well then what does Paul mean in 2 Corinthians when he wrote that Jesus actually became sin on our behalf? To deny that Jesus bore God's wrath is to deny that He became sin. It is to deny that He bore the penalty that we all deserve. Anything short of God's wrath being accomplished on the cross, is to suggest that atonement was not accomplished on the cross. In Galatians Paul says that Christ actually became a curse for us. And to say that God's wrath was bore on the cross is in no way a denial of Christus victor. Christus Victor is the concept of the eschatological drama of redemption which includes the Father giving the Son and the Son giving of Himself by bearing the punishment that humanity deserved. Your assesment of how Wilken defines the work of the cross is completely and utterly mistaken so I hate to break it to you but you do not have him pegged. Again, all he is saying with his insistence that on the cross God's wrath was bore is again that God is not only merciful and loving enough to send His Son, but that He also demands perfect righteousness and perfect justice. There is nothing, I repeat nothing in Wilken's words that even remotely suggest that he is portraying the divine work of atonement in a way that is even remotely reflective of your ridiculous illustration. He is not talking about a bitter, angry God demanding His pound of flesh. He is talking about a perfect God who seeks to reconcile His fallen creation, but who also refuses to be satisfied with anything other than perfect justice, even if it means His Son whom He loves infinitely becoming a curse and bearing His wrath. But again you have to listen to more than one segment to get that. If God is killing His Son instead of killing us because God is a divine Judge first and a loving Father second then the baseball bat illustration is spot on. What we are saying then is that God really wanted to kill US but loved us too much so he killed his Son instead. The fact is Jesus dies so that WE DO DIE! Jesus did not need to die unless God is oligated to balance a ledger sheet in heaven- we needed to die to be re-created in His Vicarious death and resurrection. If God were going to let us off why did he not just let us off? Something radical happened in the fall and needed to be recreated. Read Athanasius: ON the Incarnation of the Word of God. Chapter 2 Section 14. "You know what happens to a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material, Even so was it with the All-Holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Fatrher, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made after Himself, and seek out His lost sheep, even as He says in the Gospel: "I hcame to seek and to save that which was lost." This also explains His saying to the Jews: "Except a man be born anew..." He was not referring to a man's natural birth from his mother, as they thought, but to the re-birth and re-creation of the soul in the Image of God."



Indeed!!! Amen and amen. And I have heard Wilken on several occasion speak in just those terms using just that language. There is nothing in Wilken's insistence that upon the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God in our place that would deny this. But again, you have to listen to more than one segment to get this.

I really don't want to drag this out any more. Just suffice it to say that your assessment of Wilken is way off base. You do not have him pegged. He is no heretic. But you have clearly decided that he is and maybe you have decided I am, I don't know. Whatever.

I am not saying that there isn't some problems and inconsistencies with Wilken's thoughts on the Shack. And you know what, unlike Driscoll, I think Wilken would be very open to discussing this with Paul. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be very open to having him on the show. Maybe you could suggest this to Paul. But I do think that you have mistaken Wilken's intent here.

I think you and I see more eye to eye than we think. Emails and forums are lacking at best when it comes to accurate communication. My take on Wilken is that he makes "much-a-do" about nothing in SOME of his critiques. my assessment may be some of that too. BTW? Have YOU read the book?

[HumanityisSaved]

Admittedly this is far from a review it is (as the title of the post states) a recommend.

[VerbumReale]

Again I said I can accept the term secular in the sense of Spoiling what Triune God Created in the first place. All things were made by him and nothing was made that was made that was not made by him. But all creativity comes from the heart of the Trinity. There is only one source of love. An athiest that loves her children is sharing in Jesus' love albeit ignorantly. I think you can look at almost any art form or creative expression yes even all aspects of human life and see reflections of God. It is only in severe spoiling is it impossible for us to see. And yes the is a Kingdom Jesus has established and will bring to the full but he is Lord of the Kosmos. He is Lord of all even satan and the demon stand under his authority whether they like it or not.?


There is nothing that Wilken said that denies this.



All pagan religions teach that you have to get to God. Authentic Christianity is the only religion to posit that it is God that has come to us. You see many in the Church don't even know why we were created in the first place.?

That is my point and that is Wilken's point. Indeed in His Son God comes to us and reveals Himself to us and today continues to reveal Hismelf to us and continues to reveal Himself to us in His Word and sacraments. To say that God had to reveal Himself to Mac in a form other than How he has already revealed Himself is to say that God didn't quite get it right the first time so now He has to make Himself more relvant. It's to say that God can't reveal Himself to Mac according to the terms that He has already set.



who are we to say the Father could not do such a thing in a book of fiction.


Indeed. Of course God can. But who are we to say that He would need to change how He has revealed Himself in the first place, even if He does, as Paul appearently does in his book bring it back to the true nature of the Trinity. Who are we to say that God could not relate to someone in Mac's position by beginning in the way that He has already revealed Himself?



Agreed but hardly worthy of such a lengthy diologue on a short radio show. Sounds very nit-picky to me- aren't we all- I know I can be ;)

It's nit-pickey to insist that it is Christ alone who bore the punsihment on the cross??? Then I guess I am nit-pickey.


Paul has published nothing else- ever. This book was a gift to his kids to help them understand hisown dark experience years ago. He took it to Kinkos to have printed for his kids and they began to share it. They have never spent a dime advertising and even had to self publish. I became friends with Paul about a year after the book was published and to hear him tell the story of how God got this little book into so many hands and how it is bringing healing to so many broken lives is inspiring. I think you can find the other Shack thread and there are links to him telling some of those stories.


Fine, but certainly with everything that has been written about him since the Shack it would not be hard to discern that he is an intelligen and sophiticated man without knowing him personally. Again, did you not say that you had Wilken pegged after listening to one thirty-minute segment.



I would posit that there is no relational "side" to God. God is love! Relational is what God is. To speak of God outside of the framework of Love and Relationship is to betray His true nature..

OK now I think you are the one being nit-pickey. Of course God is love. That is in scripture. Nothing I said would indicate that I believe that God ever exists outside of that relational framework. Indeed from Genesis on God begins the work of restoring the damage done at the fall of man. But part of that reconciliation must involve atonement of sin.


I'm new here so maybe someone could show me that in the Bible. That the penalty for sin is God's wrath. I'm not being snarky I just don't know that it's there. ..

I was referring to what Kruger himself said. You provided the quote.


If God is killing His Son instead of killing us because God is a divine Judge first and a loving Father second then the baseball bat illustration is spot on. What we are saying then is that God really wanted to kill US but loved us too much so he killed his Son instead. The fact is Jesus dies so that WE DO DIE! Jesus did not need to die unless God is oligated to balance a ledger sheet in heaven- we needed to die to be re-created in His Vicarious death and resurrection. If God were going to let us off why did he not just let us off? Something radical happened in the fall and needed to be recreated. Read Athanasius: ON the Incarnation of the Word of God. Chapter 2 Section 14. [I]"You know what happens to a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material, Even so was it with the All-Holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Fatrher, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made after Himself, and seek out His lost sheep, even as He says in the Gospel: "I hcame to seek and to save that which was lost." This also explains His saying to the Jews: "Except a man be born anew..." He was not referring to a man's natural birth from his mother, as they thought, but to the re-birth and re-creation of the soul in the Image of God."[/I



This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of substitutionary atonement. It is not God who kills the Son, but our sin that kills the Son. It is our betrayal that kills Jesus. "In the night in which He was betrayed...." This does not in any way deny that we die also. Indeed Paul says in Romans 6 that those who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into His death... so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life. But again Paul also says that Jesus became a curse and became sin for us. This clearly indicates that on the cross there was was a penalty being paid. You can ridicule this all you want this imagery of God as some uptight accountant but the fact is scripture clearly indicates that on the cross there is a penalty being paid. Again, this in no way denies that on the cross sin, death and the devil are defeated. Neither does it deny that Christ died that we might die also, in order that we would be made new creations in Christ. And neither does it make God cruel, vindictive or an uptight accountant. It just means that in addition to being loving, merciful and righteous, He is also just.

[VerbumReale]

Admittedly this is far from a review it is (as the title of the post states) a recommend.


So because the bass player of Third Day liked it then I am supposed to ignore all of the other critiques I have heard about it? Look at no point was I trying to paint your friend as a heretic (as you did with Wilken). I was simply trying to present an alternative perspective since so many people seemed to be raving over it. I have not read it, but I will admit that you have answered some questions about it for me. And I may read it if I can find the time. But I know enough about it from the segment with Wilken that The Father essentially has to appear to Mac in a way that deviates from how He has revealed Himself in scripture. Now even if He does eventually bring it back to a more orthoox understanding of the Trinity, I still find the suggestion that God can't initially make Himself relatable to Mac within the Trinitarian parameters that God Himself has already established to be troubling.

[R. Smith]

I for one don't read that much, other then the Bible. But a year ago, I read the Shack. My old cell group read it as awhole, and we all loved it. Once I started reading it, I couldn't stop.

And it you haven't read it, how can you have a opinion on it??? If I went on what other people said, I would listen to more than have the bands I do...

[VerbumReale]

I for one don't read that much, other then the Bible. But a year ago, I read the Shack. My old cell group read it as awhole, and we all loved it. Once I started reading it, I couldn't stop.

And it you haven't read it, how can you have a opinion on it??? If I went on what other people said, I would listen to more than have the bands I do...

And if you would have read what I wrote you would have seen that I was simply trying to present an alternative perspective on it by citing critiques and concerns over it that I have heard from other people. At no point did I myself say that the book, as a whole was good or bad and at no point did I say that people should or should not read it based on what other people say. If you liked it and your faith was nurtured and sustained in the reading of it then praise God. But for some people, believe it or not, that isn't the case.

[HumanityisSaved]

That is my point and that is Wilken's point. Indeed in His Son God comes to us and reveals Himself to us and today continues to reveal Hismelf to us and continues to reveal Himself to us in His Word and sacraments. To say that God had to reveal Himself to Mac in a form other than How he has already revealed Himself is to say that God didn't quite get it right the first time so now He has to make Himself more relvant. It's to say that God can't reveal Himself to Mac according to the terms that He has already set. You see I believe our distinction is most precious to God the Trinity for without it there is no real chance for relationship.




Indeed. Of course God can. But who are we to say that He would need to change how He has revealed Himself in the first place, even if He does, as Paul appearently does in his book bring it back to the true nature of the Trinity. Who are we to say that God could not relate to someone in Mac's position by beginning in the way that He has already revealed Himself? How has Jesus revealed the Father to be a older white man? He is Father because of His relation to the other Persons of the Trinity not because he looks like an older white man.




It's nit-pickey to insist that it is Christ alone who bore the punsihment on the cross??? Then I guess I am nit-pickey. I never said that (and neither does Paul) Jesus is not the Atonement for all of Humanity but Paul is trying to convey the aspect of the Homoousias to Patri that escapes our Western Greek minds.




Fine, but certainly with everything that has been written about him since the Shack it would not be hard to discern that he is an intelligen and sophiticated man without knowing him personally. Again, did you not say that you had Wilken pegged after listening to one thirty-minute segment. I said I had him pegged as Penal Substitution. Not that I had HIM (in his totality) pegged.




OK now I think you are the one being nit-pickey. Of course God is love. That is in scripture. Nothing I said would indicate that I believe that God ever exists outside of that relational framework. Indeed from Genesis on God begins the work of restoring the damage done at the fall of man. But part of that reconciliation must involve atonement of sin. With all due respect you said that there was a relational side to God. That is equivalent to saying that there is an arboreal side to an oak tree. To say God is love is to imply relationship. So if insisting that John is correct that God is Love not an aspect of God is love then okay I'm nit-picky;)



I was referring to what Kruger himself said. You provided the quote.

You said in the previous post Where Dr Kruger is wrong is in his denial that Jesus bore God's wrath on the cross. That is what I am searching my Bible for. Can you help me or not?;)

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of substitutionary atonement. It is not God who kills the Son, but our sin that kills the Son. It is our betrayal that kills Jesus. "In the night in which He was betrayed...." This does not in any way deny that we die also. Indeed Paul says in Romans 6 that those who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into His death... so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life. But again Paul also says that Jesus became a curse and became sin for us. This clearly indicates that on the cross there was was a penalty being paid. You can ridicule this all you want this imagery of God as some uptight accountant but the fact is scripture clearly indicates that on the cross there is a penalty being paid. Again, this in no way denies that on the cross sin, death and the devil are defeated. Neither does it deny that Christ died that we might die also, in order that we would be made new creations in Christ. And neither does it make God cruel, vindictive or an uptight accountant. It just means that in addition to being loving, merciful and righteous, He is also just.
Did not Jesus say all judgement has been handed over to me by my Father and I judge no one? That is Krino not krisis. It appointed for man once to die and after this krisis not krino. I take your point I am just believe Trinitarian/ Incarnational theology. I am learning a lot here. I am not a Reverend I do not get to stand up on Sunday and teach a wad of people, I'm just a normal guy that has spent hundreds of hours reading the Bible, Commentaries, the Early Fathers all the way through Thomas Erskine, John Mcleod Campbell, Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinus, St. Augustine, Athanasius (he's my favy) Irenaeus, Tertullian, George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Torrance, James Torrance, Karl Barth, Michael Jinkins, Elmer Colyer, Gordon Fee, NT Wright, Ken Blue, Andrew Purves, Robert Capon, John McKenna, Garrett Scott Dawson, Baxter kruger, Rediger, Gonzalez, and many more. I eat this stuff up... maybe someday I'll go to seminary. I love to read- I read about 2 hours a day. TV sucks the life out of me but books are like an I.V. I like you VR I just see things differently and say a few places Wilken could have been more genuine in his (the only one I've heard as you so rightly and often pointed out) broadcast.

[HumanityisSaved]

So because the bass player of Third Day liked it then I am supposed to ignore all of the other critiques I have heard about it?
Remember that word R e c o m m e n d :) I like you you're fun. I bet you'd be fun to have a dram of Single Malt Scotch with- maybe like a nice Glen Garioch 15.

[VerbumReale]

How has Jesus revealed the Father to be a older white man? He is Father because of His relation to the other Persons of the Trinity not because he looks like an older white man..

I agree with everything you say here and I don't think I ever suggested that God does reveal Himself as an older white man.





With all due respect you said that there was a relational side to God. That is equivalent to saying that there is an arboreal side to an oak tree. To say God is love is to imply relationship. So if insisting that John is correct that God is Love not an aspect of God is love then okay I'm nit-picky;) ..

I agree with everything you say here and I should have used more clear language than simply saying that God has a relational said. And for what it's worth I think Wilken would agree also.




You said in the previous post That is what I am searching my Bible for. Can you help me or not?;) ..

I provided that in another post. Isaiah 53, referring to Jesus says that He was crushed for our iniquities. It refers to Jesus as being like a lamb being led to slaughter. Hence John the Baptist proclaiming Him as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It says He was taken away by oppression and judgment, cut off from the land of the living and stricken for the transgression of His people, and that his grave was made with the wicked. And it says that it was the will of the Lord to crush HIm, it says He shalll bear their iniquities. It says that His soul was poured out to death and that He was numbered with the transgressors.

And again Paul says that Christ became a curse and sin for us.

[cheewiee]

But I know enough about it from the segment with Wilken that The Father essentially has to appear to Mac in a way that deviates from how He has revealed Himself in scripture. Now even if He does eventually bring it back to a more orthoox understanding of the Trinity, I still find the suggestion that God can't initially make Himself relatable to Mac within the Trinitarian parameters that God Himself has already established to be troubling.

Didn't Jesus appear in a way that deviated from how God revealed himself in scripture?

I mean, here was this moral human, claiming divinity. He deviated from the letter of the law...

Just something to think about..

[VerbumReale]

Remember that word R e c o m m e n d :) I like you you're fun. I bet you'd be fun to have a dram of Single Malt Scotch with- maybe like a nice Glen Garioch 15.


Oh you give me too much credit, I am not nearly that sophisticated. You have the sccotch, I'll stick with Jack and coke. But I agree it would be fun. I appreciate your thoughts also. You are clearly a thinking Christian who does not reduce the Gospel to a set of moral guidelines like so much of contemporary Christianity does.

Also I was serious about Wilken interviewing Paul. I am sure he would be very open to it. He does not shy away at all from interviewing people he disagrees with. He disagrees vehemently with Robert Schuller, but he once spent an entire 2 hour segment interviewing him. He has also interviewed people from the emergent church movement with whom he has great disagreement, and many others. I think if you could ask Paul about that I think it would be a great interview. Wilken can be reached throgh the Issues etc web-site.

[VerbumReale]

Didn't Jesus appear in a way that deviated from how God revealed himself in scripture?

I mean, here was this moral human, claiming divinity. He deviated from the letter of the law...

Just something to think about..

Not at all. Jesus is God and so is one of the means by which God reveals Himself to us in scripture.

Do you deny this???

Jesus was perfect and sinless and perfectly faithful to the will of His Father. Please explain how this deviates from the letter of the law.

[cheewiee]

Not at all. Jesus is God and so is one of the means by which God reveals Himself to us in scripture.

Do you deny this???

Jesus was perfect and sinless and perfectly faithful to the will of His Father. Please explain how this deviates from the letter of the law.

He healed on the Sabbath... The Pharasees who, by using the law sought to accuse him of breaking the law for it.

Again, Jesus was a man, who claimed to be God, the eternal son of the eternal father. He was the one who called God Father, at the time, it was revolutionary, and was considered heretical.

[Valpo]

I think the overall problem with the book and what Verbum Reale is trying to get at is that it seeks to explain the unexplainable or to expound upon the unexpoundable. Who the heck can really understand the trinity? Just know it is true and look to God as God as revealed Himself. That's the problem with humanity however, we look to explain everything to give ourselves some level of control. If the book brings comfort as I'm sure it no doubt did, then rightly praise God. But in seeking to explain the trinity in such a matter it does just what Wilken says, comes up short. He's 110% right on that. When we start deviating from how God revealed Himself to us (In the person of Jesus Christ) we will always get it wrong. That's the point here. The point is not "Since God is God He CAN do this" or "Wasn't the way Jesus came called heretical or different?" of course God can and of course Jesus was called heretical. That doesn't matter today though, because if we seek to deviate from how God revealed Himself to us to explain God we get caught up and trip over our own fallible thoughts/words.

That is why it is nearly pointless to try and explain or answer the question "If God is love why do bad things happen?" Or some variation of that. God revealed Himself to us in Jesus, God did not reveal to us why horrible things happen, except that He is there with us in the horrible the entire way. To ponder why God would allow bad to happen leaves us with more questions than answers and leaves us wondering if God is a sadist. It's a road (or bridge) to nowhere. Therefore, we should only pay attention to how God has chosen to reveal Himself instead of fantasizing about other possibilities. Because when we do, we get it wrong.

[cheewiee]

I think the overall problem with the book and what Verbum Reale is trying to get at is that it seeks to explain the unexplainable or to expound upon the unexpoundable. Who the heck can really understand the trinity? Just know it is true and look to God as God as revealed Himself. That's the problem with humanity however, we look to explain everything to give ourselves some level of control. If the book brings comfort as I'm sure it no doubt did, then rightly praise God. But in seeking to explain the trinity in such a matter it does just what Wilken says, comes up short. He's 110% right on that. When we start deviating from how God revealed Himself to us (In the person of Jesus Christ) we will always get it wrong. That's the point here. The point is not "Since God is God He CAN do this" or "Wasn't the way Jesus came called heretical or different?" of course God can and of course Jesus was called heretical. That doesn't matter today though, because if we seek to deviate from how God revealed Himself to us to explain God we get caught up and trip over our own fallible thoughts/words.

That is why it is nearly pointless to try and explain or answer the question "If God is love why do bad things happen?" Or some variation of that. God revealed Himself to us in Jesus, God did not reveal to us why horrible things happen, except that He is there with us in the horrible the entire way. To ponder why God would allow bad to happen leaves us with more questions than answers and leaves us wondering if God is a sadist. It's a road (or bridge) to nowhere. Therefore, we should only pay attention to how God has chosen to reveal Himself instead of fantasizing about other possibilities. Because when we do, we get it wrong.

But thats why the book is presented (and is) a work of fiction, and not a systematic theology.

[Valpo]

But thats why the book is presented (and is) a work of fiction, and not a systematic theology.

fair enough....but that doesnt mean the book is free from criticism either

[VerbumReale]

He healed on the Sabbath... The Pharasees who, by using the law sought to accuse him of breaking the law for it.

Again, Jesus was a man, who claimed to be God, the eternal son of the eternal father. He was the one who called God Father, at the time, it was revolutionary, and was considered heretical.

It was considered heretical by heretics. When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, part of what He was doing was showing the Pharisees that they had completely missapropriated what the sabbath was intended for. Again Jesus is God Himself, Jesus is God revealing Himself to us. It makes absolutely no sense to say that God is deviating from How He reveals Himself to us by appearing to us as Jesus. Jesus is how God reveals Himself to us.

Jesus claimed to be God, because He is God. That the Pharisees saw that as heretical reveals their short-sightedness, it does not reveal Jesus to be in violation of God's perfect law.

[VerbumReale]

fair enough....but that doesnt mean the book is free from criticism either


Exactly!!! The book is marketed as Christian. Fiction or not, when a book is marketed as Christian nobody should be surprised when it is criticised according to doctrinal Christian standards. Not saying everybody should agree with the criticism, but at least try to understand what they are trying to say. What amazes me about all this isn't what The Shack says. Heck I love the Narnia books but one could probably find problems with some of the theology presented in those if they looked hard enough. What amazes me is how defensive people get when someone dares to be critical of it.

[cheewiee]

Exactly!!! The book is marketed as Christian. Fiction or not, when a book is marketed as Christian nobody should be surprised when it is criticised according to doctrinal Christian standards. Not saying everybody should agree with the criticism, but at least try to understand what they are trying to say. What amazes me about all this isn't what The Shack says. Heck I love the Narnia books but one could probably find problems with some of the theology presented in those if they looked hard enough. What amazes me is how defensive people get when someone dares to be critical of it.

If you havn't read it, how can you be critical of it? All you have is second hand knowledge about what it says... essentially you are being critical of what someone told you it said...

That doesn't seem right...

[cheewiee]

It was considered heretical by heretics. When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, part of what He was doing was showing the Pharisees that they had completely missapropriated what the sabbath was intended for. Again Jesus is God Himself, Jesus is God revealing Himself to us. It makes absolutely no sense to say that God is deviating from How He reveals Himself to us by appearing to us as Jesus. Jesus is how God reveals Himself to us.

Jesus claimed to be God, because He is God. That the Pharisees saw that as heretical reveals their short-sightedness, it does not reveal Jesus to be in violation of God's perfect law.

Until that moment in history, no God never revealed himself as Jesus...

And until Jesus introduced "the Father" as "The Father" God had never revealed himself that way to the Jews either.

[VerbumReale]

If you havn't read it, how can you be critical of it? All you have is second hand knowledge about what it says... essentially you are being critical of what someone told you it said...

That doesn't seem right...

Read my posts!!!!!! I never gave an opinion of the book as a whole. I was being critical of the notion of speaking of God in terms outside of how He has revealed Himself in scripture. Let me make this clear I have no opinion of the book as a whole. It might be brilliant. It might be great. But in the book God the Father reveals Himself as a woman. I was questioning that. I fully admit I am no expert on the book and I HAVE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM!!!!!

[VerbumReale]

Until that moment in history, no God never revealed himself as Jesus...

And until Jesus introduced "the Father" as "The Father" God had never revealed himself that way to the Jews either.



Isaiah 7

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15

There are prophecies of Jesus beginning in Genesis all the way through the whole Old Testament. Jesus Himself says in John 5 that all scripture (and He would have been referring to the OT at the time) testifies of Him. When Jesus encounters two disciples on the Road to Emmaus it says that He broke bread with them and beginning with Moses and all the prophets He interpreted to them all the things concerning Himself.

Are you denying that the OT testifies of Christ?? Are you suggesting that when the OT testifies of Christ that is not God revealing Christ?? Granted it is not until Jesus arrives that Christ is revealed in the flesh but that was prophecied continuoulsy throughout the OT. To say that God is not revealing Christ in the OT is to deny that God reveals Himself through prophecy. Does this apply to the NT also? Is Revelation not a means by which God reveals a foretaste of His promised return??

[cheewiee]

Isaiah 7

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15

There are prophecies of Jesus beginning in Genesis all the way through the whole Old Testament. Jesus Himself says in John 5 that all scripture (and He would have been referring to the OT at the time) testifies of Him. When Jesus encounters two disciples on the Road to Emmaus it says that He broke bread with them and beginning with Moses and all the prophets He interpreted to them all the things concerning Himself.

Are you denying that the OT testifies of Christ?? Are you suggesting that when the OT testifies of Christ that is not God revealing Christ?? Granted it is not until Jesus arrives that Christ is revealed in the flesh but that was prophecied continuoulsy throughout the OT. To say that God is not revealing Christ in the OT is to deny that God reveals Himself through prophecy. Does this apply to the NT also? Is Revelation not a means by which God reveals a foretaste of His promised return??

No not at all but when man read that they didn't see God becoming man, they saw an earthly king, establishing an earthly rule, and when that didn't happen, they rejected him, and begged for him to die in place of a terrorist.

I never want to be at a place where I am unwilling to see God, because of my own foolish preconceptions of what Scripture say.

[VerbumReale]

No not at all but when man read that they didn't see God becoming man, they saw an earthly king, establishing an earthly rule, and when that didn't happen, they rejected him, and begged for him to die in place of a terrorist.

I never want to be at a place where I am unwilling to see God, because of my own foolish preconceptions of what Scripture say.

But because they didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Again, Jesus Himself affirms that all scripture testifies of Him. Your making God's revelation dependent upon our ability to see it.

[cheewiee]

But because they didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Again, Jesus Himself affirms that all scripture testifies of Him. Your making God's revelation dependent upon our ability to see it.

No, I am saying, that history, as recorded in scripture shows that We (humanity) is capable of missing God, because of preconceptions we have in scripture.

[VerbumReale]

No, I am saying, that history, as recorded in scripture shows that We (humanity) is capable of missing God, because of preconceptions we have in scripture.

No denying that. Just listen to what a lot of people try to pass off as preaching today and you can see this is happening to this day.

[rossid]

I haven't read it and will post a review from Chuck Swindoll's "Insight for Living" website:

http://www.insight.org/site/PageServer?pagename=shack

Confusion about Christ
Not only is this novel’s portrayal of the Trinity inadequate, so is its portrayal of Christ. Christians confess that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, two natures in one person (called the “hypostatic union”), because this is the teaching of the Scriptures. In this union the integrity of each nature is preserved. The author’s view of Christ confuses the natures and undermines the uniqueness of the hypostatic union. In one conversation between Mack and Papa, Mack explains his belief that the miracles of Jesus are evidence of His deity. Papa corrects him, “No, it proves that Jesus is truly human” and continues,

Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. (99 - 100)

Mack is shocked to learn this, so he asks about Jesus’s healing of the blind. Papa explains:

He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone. . . .

Only as he rested in his relationship with me, and in our communion—our co-union—could he express my heart and will into any given circumstance. So, when you look at Jesus and it appears that he’s flying, he really is . . . flying. But what you are actually seeing is me; my life in him. That’s how he lives and acts as a true human, how every human is designed to live—out of my life. (100)

Several significant problems exist with this understanding of the incarnation. First, it is not true that Jesus “had no power within himself to heal anyone.” Jesus, as the God-man, did, and does, possess full and complete deity (Colossians 2:9). Young’s view sounds like kenotic Christology, that Christ gave up His deity when He became human. If He did not retain full deity on earth, He is not fully divine. Second, no other human is like Jesus in being fully divine. No other human has the power of deity as Jesus did. The incarnation of Jesus is one of a kind. And it certainly is not the case that all humans possess the life of God in them, as Papa’s statement implies.

[jesus loves me]

I'm with the review. I read it and it was a theological nightmare. The story itself reminded me of something a high schooler would write. My best friend sees value in it for some things but I can't recommend it for ANY reason.

[HumanityisSaved]

Just returned from a conference with Dr. C. Baxter Kruger (The Great Dance, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, Across All Worlds), Paul Young (The Shack), Dr. Ken Blue (Healing Spiritual Abuse and Authority to Heal) and Malcolm Smith (Power of the Blood Covenant and The Lost Secret of the New Covenant).

It was wonderful. The book has sold more copies than anyone could have imagined (over 3 million). The Blessed Trinity continues to use it to bring emotional and spiritual healing to people who are broken and in many cases have been spiritually abused by the Church.

I too have theological differences with the book but a thorough study of the NT and the early Fathers reveals that Paul got more right than wrong.

[HumanityisSaved]

Until that moment in history, no God never revealed himself as Jesus...

And until Jesus introduced "the Father" as "The Father" God had never revealed himself that way to the Jews either.

This is true- and it is also why the Pharisees wanted to kill him, because, for the first time in human history, a man refered to God as "MY Father". This personal reference to God as Father is nowhere before found in any ancient literature be it pagan or the OT until Jesus uses it to describe His place with the Father, in the Spirit in the Blessed Trinity. So for Jesus to identify the Father as being HIS Father was a huge development in the minds of mankind and we sumarily rose up to kill Him for it.

Also; we cannot see that the OT speaks of Jesus Christ, as He revealed Himself in His Incarnate life, until we have Him present with us (Emmanuel) and until we have the witness of the New Testament- to say we see Jesus as He is in the OT apart from His Acts is to (as Torrance puts it) "put together a jigsaw puzzle for the 4th or 5th time in pretended ignorance of the image we once saw upon completion of the puzzle in the first place."

[rossid]

Can you please tell us specifically what Paul Young got right?

[HumanityisSaved]

Can you please tell us specifically what Paul Young got right?

well if I told you all that it would take up over 200 pages. It would be like reading the book. So my suggestion is see for yourself. I will venture a guess that your soul will be thrilled at the love and compassion of the Trinity for ALL HUMANITY the book rightly displays.

[The Unknown Gomer]

The author was apparently in Durham just recently, they had a write up of it in the paper this morning.


Author's journey grew into spiritual therapy
By Yonat Shimron, Staff Writer

DURHAM - Imagine a book in which God is a big African-American woman who loves to cook, Jesus walks around wearing a carpenter's belt, and the Holy Spirit is an elusive Asian woman.

That's the Trinitarian formula behind a best-selling book that has stubbornly remained No. 1 on the New York Times trade fiction list for 49 weeks.

The book, called "The Shack," is a sensation in churches across the country. On Sunday, its author, William P. Young, visited Newhope Church in Durham to tell about his odyssey from office manager in Gresham, Ore., to blockbuster writer whose tale has sold 6.5 million copies.

Wearing jeans and a short-sleeved button-down shirt, Young, who goes by the name of Paul, sat in an armchair opposite Pastor Benji W. Kelley, and for nearly an hour talked candidly -- Oprah-style -- about his fall and redemption.

"It's about a man who is a lot like me," said Young of his fictional character Mackenzie, who retreats to a mountain shack to resolve his pain and anguish over the abduction and murder of his daughter. There he meets the Trinity in all its novel guises and spends a weekend in a kind of spiritual therapy session.

Except in Young's case, "the great sadness" that led him to his proverbial "shack" was childhood sexual abuse followed later in life by an extramarital affair.

"I was totally exposed," he said to the packed worship hall riveted by his every word. "I had to make a decision: Face my wife or kill myself."

The book has been the subject of numerous sermons and study groups in churches across the nation and the Triangle. In Raleigh alone, three churches, including Trinity Baptist, New Community Church and Homestar Fellowship, are now reading it or have just concluded a months-long focus on it.

"So many people have an idea that God can't just show up," said George Fuller, pastor of Raleigh's New Community Church. "They like the idea that they can sit down with God and be honest."

For Young, who grew up in New Guinea as the son of missionary parents, God was a punitive presence in his life whom he could never fully please. For years, he said, he masked his true self, hiding his secrets from everyone, including those he loved.

On Jan. 4, 1994, his wife, Kim, told him she knew about his affair. He resolved to finally confront his demons, a process he said took 11 years, including nine months of intensive psychotherapy.

He wrote the book in 2005 as a Christmas present to his six children and made 15 copies at Kinko's. The idea was to show his kids how he had healed his relationship with God. A pair of pastor friends saw potential in the work and had him revise it.

When no publisher accepted the book, the pastors paid to have it printed.

Word-of-mouth sales eventually launched the book into the stratosphere, and it has, in Pastor Kelley's words, "gone global." The book is being translated into 14 languages.

"I was deeply moved at his transparency," said Felicia Street of Durham, who attends a church in Raleigh but came especially to hear Young. "He was saying, 'This is my past. This is my shame. This is my sin.' But God pursues us to heal us."

Though some critics have called the writing "hokey" and some conservative evangelicals have labeled its theology "subversive," the book has a following among the hundreds of Christians in Durham who showed up to listen to Young's testimony.

As they formed long lines outside the church to have Young sign copies, they said its inspiration lies in its simple message: Here is a man who takes responsibility for his life and vows to be a blessing to others.

In keeping with his confessional style, Young asked church volunteers to place a chair next to the table where he signed the books -- rather than behind it. That way, he said, he could give each person a hug.

[rossid]

well if I told you all that it would take up over 200 pages. It would be like reading the book. So my suggestion is see for yourself. I will venture a guess that your soul will be thrilled at the love and compassion of the Trinity for ALL HUMANITY the book rightly displays.


Wow those are strong words of support. You would think this was the Bible and not a work of fiction!


And thanks for sharing the Durham article.

[The Unknown Gomer]

Wow those are strong words of support. You would think this was the Bible and not a work of fiction!


And thanks for sharing the Durham article.

You're welcome. :) If I'd known he was here, I might have gone. But I hate Durham, I've gotten lost each of the few times I've actually ventured off of I-40 to go there for something, so then again, I probably wouldn't have. But had he come to RALEIGH... ;) )

It really IS a good book. It definitely made for a fascinating read.

Did I see somewhere earlier in the thread that there's a movie planned for it? There should be, because if I remember right (it's been a while since I finished it) it's one of those books where it makes it very easy to visualize what is going on in your head instead of just reading the words on the page. 'Course, like most movies, I'm sure what they come up with for the big screen won't compare to how I picture things (casting Molly Ringwald as Frannie in The Stand comes to mind :rolleyes: ), movies almost never do, but it would be interesting to see what they come up with.

I'd go see it. Or at least rent the DVD. :)

[HumanityisSaved]

Wow those are strong words of support. You would think this was the Bible and not a work of fiction!


Really? It sounds like a review for the Bible? I don't see how but I suppose opinions of the Bible may vary. The Shack is just an excellent book that I believe shows well the heart of the Trinity and humanity's place within the circle of the Shared Life of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

[rich-in-grace]

http://www.theshackconferenceofh amptonroads.com/

Way cool! I'm there.

[jrmitch]

Can you please tell us specifically what Paul Young got right?Doriano, by way of an answer I'm posting the following comments from an interview done with my pastor not long after Mr. Young spoke at our church in April of 2008:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that there are probably at least a couple of reasons why Paul’s book has been so successful. First, I think The Shack presents intimacy with God in a relatable fashion and the average “Joe or Jane” is hungry for God. It is just my opinion, but I think modern day Evangelicalism has had limited success in presenting– God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—“as real and approachable” in terms of personal relationship. Paul Young’s story of Mack who gets to know God up close and personal renews the faith of many who have always hoped that closeness with God would actually be possible.

Second, I also think we have failed in many ways to adequately answer some of the tough and often repeated hard questions people have. Questions such as, “Why does God let bad things happen to good people?” That oft asked question is a major theme of The Shack. Those of us who are in the ministry have probably all given oversimplistic answers to this question and all too often we have given them to people who were in true anguish and personal pain. We have been guilty in many cases of failing to point out that Romans 8:28 is a process and not a quick fix and The Shack patiently and emphatically points that out.

Evangelicals and Charismatics alike in the Body of Christ tend to be quick to heap guilt upon the grief-stricken. The list of benefits that come from suffering come profusely and routinely from our lips without understanding, explaining or allowing for the comfort that can come from pouring out one’s heart in lament before God. We imply to hurting individuals that if they really trusted God they wouldn’t be sad in the midst of some personal tragedy. We provide the head knowledge of should’s and ought’s that fuel the guilt residing in people who are unable to reach God’s standards by themselves.

The Shack is popular because the “everyman” in our society knows that their only chance at heaven is through a God that loves them a lot and is willing to hear their pain. The Shack strikes a nerve for anyone who has ever been angry at God, angry at themselves or hopelessly angry at a perpetrator and incapable of finding their way out of the maze of unforgiveness. Paul Young, through this short novel that reeks of genuine love–while not flinching at depravity–sheds light on the path to true forgiveness through Jesus Christ and that is something this world longs for.

Note: Here's the link to the full interview referenced above: http://phoenixpreacher.com/cms/?p=3397

[HumanityisSaved]

Doriano, by way of an answer I'm posting the following comments from an interview done with my pastor not long after Mr. Young spoke at our church in April of 2008:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that there are probably at least a couple of reasons why Paul’s book has been so successful. First, I think The Shack presents intimacy with God in a relatable fashion and the average “Joe or Jane” is hungry for God. It is just my opinion, but I think modern day Evangelicalism has had limited success in presenting– God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—“as real and approachable” in terms of personal relationship. Paul Young’s story of Mack who gets to know God up close and personal renews the faith of many who have always hoped that closeness with God would actually be possible.

Second, I also think we have failed in many ways to adequately answer some of the tough and often repeated hard questions people have. Questions such as, “Why does God let bad things happen to good people?” That oft asked question is a major theme of The Shack. Those of us who are in the ministry have probably all given oversimplistic answers to this question and all too often we have given them to people who were in true anguish and personal pain. We have been guilty in many cases of failing to point out that Romans 8:28 is a process and not a quick fix and The Shack patiently and emphatically points that out.

Evangelicals and Charismatics alike in the Body of Christ tend to be quick to heap guilt upon the grief-stricken. The list of benefits that come from suffering come profusely and routinely from our lips without understanding, explaining or allowing for the comfort that can come from pouring out one’s heart in lament before God. We imply to hurting individuals that if they really trusted God they wouldn’t be sad in the midst of some personal tragedy. We provide the head knowledge of should’s and ought’s that fuel the guilt residing in people who are unable to reach God’s standards by themselves.

The Shack is popular because the “everyman” in our society knows that their only chance at heaven is through a God that loves them a lot and is willing to hear their pain. The Shack strikes a nerve for anyone who has ever been angry at God, angry at themselves or hopelessly angry at a perpetrator and incapable of finding their way out of the maze of unforgiveness. Paul Young, through this short novel that reeks of genuine love–while not flinching at depravity–sheds light on the path to true forgiveness through Jesus Christ and that is something this world longs for.

Note: Here's the link to the full interview referenced above: http://phoenixpreacher.com/cms/?p=3397

Well said.

And I know that Paul is looking forward to the Virginia conference and I think he is beginning to wind down the travelling. In fact I think he may be ready to give it up for the most part to be with his family more.

Baxter Kruger will be there too and anyone in the area will definately not want to miss him. He will baptize your imagination with such visions of the Father, Son, and Spirit's goodness and love for humankind that you will likely never be the same.