The Shack

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:27 pm

TK wrote:
None really. Like I said, I could be wrong. It's just that Young is relatively new on the seen and presents questionable doctrine, many say heretical doctrine. Also is it just coincidence that many extremist women's libbers like to refer to God as "She" or "Her" and then Young comes along and portrays the Father as a woman and the Spirit as a woman? So, not knowing much about him, except for reading his book, he is suspect, or should I say "guilty" until proven "innocent"?

1. Young hasn't been around (or well-known) as long as the others I mentioned.
2. His doctrine is questionable, possibly heretical.
3. His twisted portrayal of the members of the Trinity.

So I guess I do have some reasons. One last thing, which really is part of #2: A God who is all love, not religious, and no judgment is very popular among the masses and that seems to be a general theme in his book. This is obviously true - just look at the record sales for his book. It's very possible that he knew it would be very popular and a big money-maker.
Do you think God is religious? If so, what do you mean?

Dwight: I misspoke. Obviously, religion is "man reaching out to God", as I mentioned before. Religion is something man does, not God. What I meant to say was that the God of The Shack, as Young presents Him, despises man-made religion. He is against Christians acting religious.

I don't think Young denies that God will judge, although it is true that he does not believe in eternal torment, but there is nothing heretical about that.

Dwight: In person, maybe Young believes that, but I don't believe he conveyed that in his book. As to the question of whether not believing in eternal torment is heretical or not, many people that I admire believe that it is, including my pastor. As he has said, "If it doesn't mean eternal torment, then it cannot mean eternal life, since the same word is used." Personally I am undecided on that.

I am also not sure what you mean when you say he gave a twisted portrayal of members of the Trinity. As far as I know no one else has really tried to portray it in a work of fiction and since it was his book he had the right to depict them as he wished. I did not see any glaring issues in how he portrayed them;

Dwight: How about this for a glaring issue? Not only did He portray them in a non-Biblical way, but He had them speak words that the Bible never confirms that they spoke. He literally added to the word of God. Young never pretended that the Father and the Spirit would really appear as women, but he did strongly imply that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if they appeared to us, as they did to McKensie, would ACTUALLY SPEAK THOSE WORDS. Those words were not recorded in the Bible. Young has each member of the Trinity speaking with authority, as if it were the word of God. If this is not glaring, I don't what is. You don't put words into God's mouth.

The "heresy" word is tossed around far too often and easily. What are you going to say to all the heretics you meet in heaven?
Dwight: If God's word is true, there will be no heretics there.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:31 pm

You seem to be saying that the mere fact that the book has conversations between God and Mac that aren't lifted right out of scripture that this is improper.

I don't agree, but if that is your conviction I can understand it.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Shack

Post by steve7150 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:11 am

I got zero theology from The Shack, nor would I go to this book or movie for theology.

What influenced me, and I suspect this was the author's main purpose in writing the book, is that God desires a much deeper relationship with me than I currently allow (for whatever reasons) and that the fault for this is 100% mine and 0% God's. It encouraged me to pursue a more intimate relationship with God, and that fact alone made the book worthwhile to me.






Amen! I saw the movie recently and liked it a lot although i knew it had theological issues as i watched it but felt the message and concept was the purpose of it. I thought portraying Father God as a black women was insightful and i loved the way the Trinity was portrayed. Although Papa said no one was the boss, it seemed to me Papa was in fact the boss but in a loving manner. Also the scene where Mack could see his daughter alive and well in heaven was awesome to me and that alone outweighed any theological errors by a country mile!

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:58 pm

Agreed Steve.

We obviously know that the Father, Son and HS have a relationship. We really only get a glimpse of the relationship of the incarnated Son and the Father from scripture. We have far less idea of what that relationship was like preincarnation and what it is like now. And who knows exactly how the HS fits in- I guess that depends on ones views regarding the Trinity ;)

I liked how the book and movie tried to portray the 3 way relationship. I agree that Papa was the clear "boss" for extreme lack of a better word but just barely so- I definitely sensed mutual submission which is a picture of how Christians should relate to each other w/o "lording it over" each other.

This was a work of fiction and therefore the author had the right to portray this as he wished. As CS Lewis says, if it was helpful, great. If not, throw it away.

But i still feel the main point of the book was that God is "especially fond" of us and wants to draw us closer

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:11 pm

On page 95 in The Shack, Papa has scars on his wrists. But the Father was not crucified. Jesus was. On page 124, there is a denial of a hierarchy within the trinity. But the Father sent the Son, not the other way around. In the Bible, Jesus is always submitting to the Father, never the other way around. On page 136, Papa says "good and evil do not have any actual existence." But this is a direct contradiction of Jesus' words in Luke 18:19 and John 17:15. On page 145-146, "God" wants to be submitted to Mack. But this contradicts the Bible truth that man is to submit to God, never vice-versa. On page 206, it says that "God" has never placed an expectation on anyone. But 1 Peter 1:16 tells us that God expects us to be holy. On page 225, Papa says: "In Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. But Matthew 25:46 and Mark 3:29 show us that NOT ALL are forgiven. Jesus died for all, but not all receive God's forgiveness or else all would be saved (which is what Young really believes).

The author seems to contradict himself in videos I have seen of him. First, he says that "The Shack" is fiction and not theological. At other times, he says it is theological, "just as all of life is theological".

There are many theological errors (some are mentioned above), gender-confusion, and the presentation of words, as if God was speaking them Himself. It is a book and movie that lies about the truth of God and the Bible, to immature Christians, mature Christians and to unbelievers.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Shack

Post by steve7150 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:47 am

There are many theological errors (some are mentioned above), gender-confusion, and the presentation of words, as if God was speaking them Himself. It is a book and movie that lies about the truth of God and the Bible, to immature Christians, mature Christians and to unbelievers.









What you said is not in dispute, it's a matter of whether presenting God and the afterlife to the general secular public outweighs the theological errors in the movie or not. The biggest issue people have is about why does God allow evil to continue when He could stop it and at least this movie tried to address this issue in a serious way, which is a courageous attempt IMHO.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Shack

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:40 am

dwight92070 wrote:On page 95 in The Shack, Papa has scars on his wrists. But the Father was not crucified. Jesus was. On page 124, there is a denial of a hierarchy within the trinity. But the Father sent the Son, not the other way around. In the Bible, Jesus is always submitting to the Father, never the other way around. On page 136, Papa says "good and evil do not have any actual existence." But this is a direct contradiction of Jesus' words in Luke 18:19 and John 17:15. On page 145-146, "God" wants to be submitted to Mack. But this contradicts the Bible truth that man is to submit to God, never vice-versa. On page 206, it says that "God" has never placed an expectation on anyone. But 1 Peter 1:16 tells us that God expects us to be holy. On page 225, Papa says: "In Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. But Matthew 25:46 and Mark 3:29 show us that NOT ALL are forgiven. Jesus died for all, but not all receive God's forgiveness or else all would be saved (which is what Young really believes).

The author seems to contradict himself in videos I have seen of him. First, he says that "The Shack" is fiction and not theological. At other times, he says it is theological, "just as all of life is theological".
Hello Dwight :)

Did you collect these thoughts from https://carm.org/shack-short-article ?

On the issues...

1. Young knows, of course, that the Father was not crucified. He is (I think quite obviously) using the scars as a literary device to combat the quite popular notion that, in the atonement, the Father and Son were at odds with each other (as if the loving/forgiving Jesus had to protect us against the angry/wrathful Father). Young wants us to understand that the Father loves us. The Father sent the Son to save us. The Father 'felt' that loss like the Son did. I see no problem with his point whatsoever. In fact, I think it's a good reminder.

2. On hierarchy within the Trinity, wouldn't you consider this an in-house debate? I mean, Christians tend to agree that the Father sent the Son. But Christians also tend to agree that the Father and Son are equally God. So is it absolutely necessary to take the fact that, in salvation history, the Son submitted to the Father, to mean that this MUST ALWAYS be the way it works in their relationship? I see no reason to conclude such a thing so long as we continue to believe that the Father and Son are equal. I do think Young has an overly anti-hierarchal view, but by no means would I consider his position heresy.

3. I don't remember the good & evil quote off-hand (nor do I have my copy of The Shack with me). But if I remember right, Young was just making the same point that CS Lewis was making when he said that evil is not a thing in itself, but the corruption of something good. This is a point I totally agree with. Once that corruption has taken place, of course, you can speak of it as a thing while recognizing that it is actually just the corruption of a thing.

4. Actually, God submits to the wills of humans quite often in Scripture. I can't even comprehend how Matt Slick (or yourself) missed that point. The Israelites wanted an earthly king... God submitted. People pray... God changes His course of action. The Jewish and Roman authorities wanted to kill God the Son, Jesus submitted. It seems to me that people are using the negative connotation of submission when they critique Young on this point, but submission can be a beautiful thing. God asks us to submit to one another because mutual submission is beautiful.

5. As to expectations, having read 2 books by Young, I don't think he believes expectations don't exist at all. I think his belief is that God is so relationally oriented that He's never thinking in terms of expectations. Growth in holiness will happen as a result of that intimacy (Young himself says he's become a better man since coming to his current views). And while I would agree with Matt Slick (and you) that we don't need to throw out the language of expectation, Young's core point is ultimately correct (that relationship is the source of transformation).

6. On the salvation of all, I do not agree with Young's position (that all people are presently forgiven/saved) either. But we do need to recognize that his position and our position is not as far apart as we might think. For instance, we might word it as follows... "The free gift of salvation is available to all... to every individual... we just have to receive it!" Young might say something like "The free gift of salvation is present to all... to every individual... we just have to experience it!" There are differences there, for sure. And I think Young is wrong (he actually imagines that some 'saved' people will go to hell (in fact, everyone in 'hell' will be saved since everyone is saved. So, in practice, his view is not so different as yours. He just speaks of availability as if its actuality.

7. I can certainly understand why Young would say that the work is fiction, not theological BUT THEN say that all things are theological. Reading charitably, this need not be a contradiction. He seems to mean that he did not set out to directly make theological statements. The Shack is not a theology textbook. But he also realizes that every story contains beliefs... so, in that sense, we're always doing or working out our theology.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Shack

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:11 pm

4. Actually, God submits to the wills of humans quite often in Scripture. I can't even comprehend how Matt Slick (or yourself) missed that point. The Israelites wanted an earthly king... God submitted. People pray... God changes His course of action. The Jewish and Roman authorities wanted to kill God the Son, Jesus submitted.

Dwight: It doesn't matter what the Roman or Jewish authorities wanted, Jesus wasn't submitting to their wishes, He was submitting to His Father's will to be offered up. I cannot comprehend how you are missing this point. Didn't He pray to His Father, "Thy will be done?" As far as God granting us our requests, the key word is "granting", i.e. it is up to Him to grant our request or not. Sometimes it is His will to give us what we ask for. That's not Him submitting to us, as if we were an authority over Him. I cannot see how you are coming with your conclusion here.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Shack

Post by TK » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:19 pm

Jesus said he could have asked his Father to send ten legions of angels to rescue him. Would God have done so had Jesus asked, despite Gods plan for the ages? Or was Jesus not being truthful?

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Shack

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:19 pm

dwight92070 wrote: As far as God granting us our requests, the key word is "granting", i.e. it is up to Him to grant our request or not. Sometimes it is His will to give us what we ask for. That's not Him submitting to us, as if we were an authority over Him. I cannot see how you are coming with your conclusion here.
Your bolded words above are the key here. You are automatically linking the word 'submit' to ideas of 'authority'. Young doesn't mean it that way. He's using the word 'submit' more like you're using the word 'granting'.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”