The Shack? Whats your Review?

[blessedmomof5]

Stan,
you are more than welcome, well deserved i might add. I feel God opens everyones eyes where they need to be opened because we are all not Spiritually at the same place. so if this book as i have said plenty of times before opens the eyes of just a few and they come to Believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior Then all the Glory and Honor goes to He who sits on the Most High Throne. Funny though how the beginning of the book for me, i thought at first i could not read, knowing his child was missing and now gone, i could not bear the thought, i was in tears. didn't think i could get through it.
BlessedMomof5

Thank you for your comments.

I would like to tell you how I came to ‘….really looked closely at it”

My wife is in a book club and after she read The Shack she was encouraged but then she read some criticisms and this bothered her. She asked if I would read the book to see what I thought about it. I said that I was not interested in fiction books then she told me what was bothering her and gave me a list of the criticisms.

I was flattered that my wife asked me to help her with understanding a book as she usually has to explain movies and books to me. You know how we men are we usually cannot keep two things in our head at the same time. Because my wife ask for my help and trusted me with something that was bothering her I tore into the book, not once but twice!

On Valentines Day I took her to a mountain café with snow that is 2 hours away and she read the book to me all the way. That is a treat for us desert dwellers. We discussed the book all the way back home and then over the next few days I read the book again and highlighted some of the main points.

If anything, I was a little predisposed to seeing the book in a negative light before I read it. I just thought that addressing spiritual issues in book of fiction would not have much value. After all, I thought, we have the Bible why do I need a fiction book to give me insight to spiritualism?

Well I was a little bored with the first few chapters and then when Mack met Papa at The shack and she was an African American woman I thought, man o man what is this! Is this book trying to make some kind of political gender or racial statement?

After reading the next few chapters I was hooked. I began getting fed spiritually and after reviewing and thinking about it for days I started getting on the Internet and getting more information about the book, the author, and others involved in the finalizing of the book. My wife asked me to write down my review and thoughts on the book and that is what I posted on this forum.

Blessedmomof5, thank you for your encouragement!

Stan[/quote]

 

[sdmsanjose]

Post by Captivated
Originally Posted by IreneAdler http://www.christianforums.com/t7375390-4/#post54215922
great book when the author wasn't stuck on trying to explain the trinity (unnecessary IMO)
made me cry and I just plain don't do that with books
Me too. Well, not exactly. I am readily moved to tears and several books have made me cry. But this one had me crying from an early stage just about all the way through. It started when Mack asks Papa (something like) what is truth? And Papa says, he's in the woodshed chopping firewood. Wow, it really hit me with major force (even though I already knew it) that truth is a person -Jesus!

(Apologies, Stan. You quote so accurately but I don't have my copy immediately to hand. Think I got the gist of it though!)

Captivated
IMO you crying over the fact that Jesus is truth is VERY ACCURATE!

Thank you for sharing your personal moment with us.
Stan

 

[sdmsanjose]

Post by Blessedmomof5
Stan,
you are more than welcome, well deserved i might add. I feel God opens everyones eyes where they need to be opened because we are all not Spiritually at the same place. so if this book as i have said plenty of times before opens the eyes of just a few and they come to Believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior Then all the Glory and Honor goes to He who sits on the Most High Throne. Funny though how the beginning of the book for me, i thought at first i could not read, knowing his child was missing and now gone, i could not bear the thought, i was in tears. didn't think i could get through it.


Blessed
At my wife’s book club my wife’s ex-sister-in-law (JoAnn) broke down crying and stated that it was because of the part where Mack was seeing missy in the afterlife but could not touch her. The reason that JoAnn is my wife’s ex-sister-in-law is because she decided to let the doctors pull the plug on my wife’s brother (Johnny) when he was 35 years of age.

My wife’s brother was paralyzed from the neck down with a brain cancer that was slowly killing him. JoAnn allowed the doctors to pull the plug because Johnny was violently thrashing his head for days and when they got a form of communication from Johnny he wanted the plug pulled. Johnny had said several months before being so paralyzed that he was no longer a man and could not be a husband for his wife JoAnn and did not want his little daughters to see him in such a helpless state. At the funeral one of the daughters could not go to the casket and never did. In the next two years JoAnn’s father and mother-in-law died of cancer also.

The Shack deals with a lot of things that bring tears and I appreciate the possitive hope that the book presents.
Stan

 

[blessedmomof5]

Wow Stan,
I am so sorry for you, your wife, sister in law, everyone involved in this story. Pray they were all Believers? Poor Johnny. I am touched by you sharing that personal story with me, thank you. The Lord Puts His hand on who He Delights in. i am sure many lives were touched by that book.

Post by Blessedmomof5
Stan,
you are more than welcome, well deserved i might add. I feel God opens everyones eyes where they need to be opened because we are all not Spiritually at the same place. so if this book as i have said plenty of times before opens the eyes of just a few and they come to Believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior Then all the Glory and Honor goes to He who sits on the Most High Throne. Funny though how the beginning of the book for me, i thought at first i could not read, knowing his child was missing and now gone, i could not bear the thought, i was in tears. didn't think i could get through it.


Blessed
At my wife’s book club my wife’s ex-sister-in-law (JoAnn) broke down crying and stated that it was because of the part where Mack was seeing missy in the afterlife but could not touch her. The reason that JoAnn is my wife’s ex-sister-in-law is because she decided to let the doctors pull the plug on my wife’s brother (Johnny) when he was 35 years of age.

My wife’s brother was paralyzed from the neck down with a brain cancer that was slowly killing him. JoAnn allowed the doctors to pull the plug because Johnny was violently thrashing his head for days and when they got a form of communication from Johnny he wanted the plug pulled. Johnny had said several months before being so paralyzed that he was no longer a man and could not be a husband for his wife JoAnn and did not want his little daughters to see him in such a helpless state. At the funeral one of the daughters could not go to the casket and never did. In the next two years JoAnn’s father and mother-in-law died of cancer also.

The Shack deals with a lot of things that bring tears and I appreciate the possitive hope that the book presents.
Stan

 

[Godstone]

Personally I wouldn't recommend it.

There is a book on the way called 'Burning down the Shack' which has been written as a warning concerning some of the unscriptural things in the Shack. There are so many good christian books around, that I'd rather avoid anything that maybe doctrinally unsound.

 

[Godstone]

Is the God of the Shack the same as the revealed God of the Bible?

The Shack: God: "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy cure it" page 120

The Bible: The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

* The Shack rejects the sole authority of the Bible to determine matters of faith and practice. Rather than finding a Bible by the altar in a little old country church and getting comfort and counsel from the word of God, he is instructed to go to an empty shack in the wilderness with no Bible and get all he needs to cope with the tragedies of life from extra-biblical voices. The Shack’s author rejects what “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture…. God’s voice had been reduced to paper…. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients…. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (63).
However, the Bible clearly declares that “Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added). Indeed, our comfort is not found in extra-biblical revelations but is realized in that “through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).

In an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams of KAYP Radio, Paul Young denied the substitutionary Atonement of Christ. In other words, the author of this bestselling book does not believe Christ was punished on the Cross by the Father for our sins. This is a central doctrine of our faith -- that Jesus willingly took our place of punishment and that through His sacrifice we can have eternal life.

 

[blessedmomof5]

HMMM

 

[talitha]

The Shack: God: "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy cure it" page 120

The Bible: The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

I think the verse jibes well with the quote from the book, and so does John 3:16-17, by the way. Interestingly, too, the word rendered "punishment" in this version of 2 Peter 2:9 literally means pruning, figuratively chastisement or correction. We tend to have a different idea of punishment than that.....

* The Shack rejects the sole authority of the Bible to determine matters of faith and practice.

I would say it is GOD who is the sole authority - the Bible is meant to lead us to HIM and to talk about HIM.

Rather than finding a Bible by the altar in a little old country church and getting comfort and counsel from the word of God, he is instructed to go to an empty shack in the wilderness with no Bible and get all he needs to cope with the tragedies of life from extra-biblical voices.

The "little old country church" concept has been done, and frankly I've been in enough little old country churches to know that they are not all necessarily the bastians of purity and holiness that they are reputed to be..... Wouldn't you like to have a direct encounter with God? I know I would! And I look forward to one, whether in this life or the life to come! When that which is perfect comes, the mere representation of the perfect is not needed. (which is not to say that the representation is not a good representation, but it does pale in comparison)

The Shack’s author rejects what “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture…. God’s voice had been reduced to paper…. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients…. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (63).

Praise God that the author of The Shack realizes this! In the Old Testament if you will recall, the difference between false/heathen gods and the REAL God was that the real God actually hears us and moves and speaks. Dumb idols don't hear, don't speak, and don't move. But...
HE LIVES! HE LIVES! CHRIST JESUS LIVES TODAY!
HE WALKS WITH ME AND TALKS WITH ME ALONG LIFE'S NARROW WAY......

However, the Bible clearly declares that “Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added).

True, but this does not mean that the GOD of the universe has to hide behind pages and leather covers. If God were confined in such a way, then what comfort would that be? Praise His Name - He is real and is a NOW God - His name is I AM, not I WAS AND SOMEDAY WILL BE AGAIN.

In an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams of KAYP Radio, Paul Young denied the substitutionary Atonement of Christ. In other words, the author of this bestselling book does not believe Christ was punished on the Cross by the Father for our sins. This is a central doctrine of our faith -- that Jesus willingly took our place of punishment and that through His sacrifice we can have

eternal life.

Here is a link to where you can hear WPYoung talking with an interviewer about this. William Young, Author of The Shack, Outright Denies the Penal Substitutionary Atonement at Christian Research Net When I listen to it, what I hear is a failure to communicate. It's almost like hearing people from two different cultures talk about the same thing, each from his own perspective. What do you think?

blessings
tal

 

[Captivated]

I think the verse jibes well with the quote from the book, and so does John 3:16-17, by the way. Interestingly, too, the word rendered "punishment" in this version of 2 Peter 2:9 literally means pruning, figuratively chastisement or correction. We tend to have a different idea of punishment than that.....


I would say it is GOD who is the sole authority - the Bible is meant to lead us to HIM and to talk about HIM.


The "little old country church" concept has been done, and frankly I've been in enough little old country churches to know that they are not all necessarily the bastians of purity and holiness that they are reputed to be..... Wouldn't you like to have a direct encounter with God? I know I would! And I look forward to one, whether in this life or the life to come! When that which is perfect comes, the mere representation of the perfect is not needed. (which is not to say that the representation is not a good representation, but it does pale in comparison)


Praise God that the author of The Shack realizes this! In the Old Testament if you will recall, the difference between false/heathen gods and the REAL God was that the real God actually hears us and moves and speaks. Dumb idols don't hear, don't speak, and don't move. But...
HE LIVES! HE LIVES! CHRIST JESUS LIVES TODAY!
HE WALKS WITH ME AND TALKS WITH ME ALONG LIFE'S NARROW WAY......



True, but this does not mean that the GOD of the universe has to hide behind pages and leather covers. If God were confined in such a way, then what comfort would that be? Praise His Name - He is real and is a NOW God - His name is I AM, not I WAS AND SOMEDAY WILL BE AGAIN.

Here is a link to where you can hear WPYoung talking with an interviewer about this. William Young, Author of The Shack, Outright Denies the Penal Substitutionary Atonement at Christian Research Net When I listen to it, what I hear is a failure to communicate. It's almost like hearing people from two different cultures talk about the same thing, each from his own perspective. What do you think?

blessings
tal

Iwas shocked once when a speaker from the pulpit baldly announced that the Bible wouldn't save me. Until I thought about it for a while.
Can the Bible save us? No, only God can do that (although we can find out how in Scripture).
Did the Bible hang on the cross to restore us to a right relationship with God? No, God did that (although we can find out why in Scripture).
The Bible isn't God. Only God is God.
In 'The Shack' Mack goes to 'an empty shack in the wilderness with no Bible and get all he needs' from the source of the Bible, GOD Himself. I can't see anything wrong with that.
None of this is to denigrate the Bible in anyway. I love it, revere it, study it, follow its direction, as the written word of God. But if I didn't have it, would it mean that I didn't have God? Not for one minute!
Someone (?St. Augustine) once described the Bible as a love letter from God. A love letter is wonderful, something to be read often, memorised and cherished. But it is no substitute for the loved one themselves!

 

[Godstone]

'True, but this does not mean that the GOD of the universe has to hide behind pages and leather covers. If God were confined in such a way, then what comfort would that be? Praise His Name - He is real and is a NOW God - His name is I AM, not I WAS AND SOMEDAY WILL BE AGAIN.'


I respect your comments, but there is no separating the Living God from his living words. The words of the Bible are not merely the past.I don't agree that God is a 'now God' - he is described as the Alpha & the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

There is a shift in the church, especially in the U.S away from traditional doctrine. A church that is not built on the rock will not stand when trouble comes.

When the Shack describes Christ as the best way to relate to the Father, it undermines Jesus' words that he is THE way.

For me, I don't like the idea of a person representing God using their own opinion of what they think God is like. It's really dangerous ground. If an author wishes to attempt such a thing he/she needs to make sure that the words used are always in line with the way God has been revealed to us - anything else, however small, is to create God in our image.

Again, I respect and value your views

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote by Godstone
When the Shack describes Christ as the best way to relate to the Father, it undermines Jesus' words that he is THE way.

Sdmsanjose responds

Quotes from the book:
“Since I am human we have much more in common.”
“I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu. To see me is to see them…..”

Jesus is helping Mack relate to God and the HS by focusing on Himself. Jesus is also trying to help Mack see that they are one by saying “ To see me is to see them…..”

I can very easily interpret that to mean that Jesus is saying that He is the best way to relate to God and the Holy Spirit because Mac has trouble relating to them. Jesus is saying that because He is also human and that mankind can best relate to God and the HS though Him.

Jesus is not saying that there are others that can be a way to salvation and to God and the HS. He is saying that if you are having trouble understanding and relating to God and the HS I am the best way rather than you try to relate directly to God and HS. Jesus is a better way because Mack sees Jesus as “….more real or tangible”.

Jesus is only talking about Mack relating to the trinity not another way to salvation.

Quote by Godstone

For me, I don't like the idea of a person representing God using their own opinion of what they think God is like. It's really dangerous ground. If an author wishes to attempt such a thing he/she needs to make sure that the words used are always in line with the way God has been revealed to us - anything else, however small, is to create God in our image.

Sdmsanjose responds

Listed below are a few of the representations of God that are in the book

Themes

page references are from the paper back addition and may be different from the hardback book.

1 Relationships pg 104---125--- and multiple other pages

2 God is good and operates from that precedence
pg 129—155---169--


3 Mankind to deny self independence and perceived rights and trust God
pg 138-139-147

4 Judgments of hell and heaven pg 163--164


5 Mercy triumphs over justice because of love pg166

6 reinforcement of the greater after life. Pg169

7 Spiritual refinement by pain suffering and finally death pg179

8 I came to give you life to the fullest pg182

9 Trust me and grow in loving people round you pg 183

10 Rules responsibilities, and the LAW pg 204-207

11 Forgiveness pg 223-229

12 Redemption pg 129

13 Warnings of some orthodox Christian religions pg181

Those listed above seem to be a good representation of God. Do you agree?


Godstone, in response to your last post;

Do you have some references from the book that would be considered “dangerous” and words that”…. he/she needs to make sure that the words used are always in line with the way God has been revealed to us”?