Comments

The fuss over The Shack is coming mostly, it would seem to me, from the "very Reformed" side of the church aisle (Colson excepted). Could it be the criticism is not really about some supposed heresy (a very, very silly and specious charge) as it is about sytematics? These dogma-driven theological bullies can't stand to see a popular book that connects with normal Christians that has the audacity to be written from a more "Wesleyan" understanding of God's sovereignty. These Reformed front guard seem to be on a personal mission to denounce anything that does not conform to their narrow and sometimes neo-gnostic ideas of theology ("You must accept all of our secret codes, and only then will you really be able to understand the Bible."). I want to be loving and charitable with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but the Reformedism chant and mantra grates on my spirit. The Shack is just one more non-Reformed target for their acrimony.

I'm a 50-something, seminary-trained, conservative evangelical. I'm an analytical Biblical theologian. I read The Shack expecting to be disappointed. I was not. It's a great story. There is no heresy. It's encouraging and spiritually uplifting, and presents through artistic license a very compelling literary picture of the trinity and a comprehensible explanation of God's sovereignty. The critics you mentioned don't like anything that smacks of Wesleyan doctrine, and will reject and criticize it out of hand. The Reformedites can gather their band of critics and negativists. I, for one, hope The Shack gets a much wider audience. People need a hopeful picture of the personal and loving God who is sovereign in their lives, not a cold credalism that offers little more than a conforming frown.

Derek, you wrote: "Along the way we might also want to pause to think about what the phenomenal grassroots popularity of an iconoclastic novel such as The Shack..." Yes, we ought to think about that, and about the similarly phenomenal sales of books like The Secret and The Celestine Prophecy. I am not saying The Shack is a New Age book, but it is possible that by departing from doctrine and making the Trinity "palatable" for the masses, Mr. Young has forsaken the very tradition that provided him with the framework for his version of the Trinity. My own take is that just because a book is popular and "resonates" with people, that doesn't make it doctrinally sound, nor does it provide a good foundation for people entering Christian faith for the first time. On the contrary, people may like reading The Shack and then, when faced with the reality of the Bible and God's own Word on repentance and wrath, salvation and sin, those same folks will go right back to their New Age books and self-help rituals without ever experiencing the full joy of a true relationship with the real Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I have been waiting for the CT editors to come with their take on the sensational publishing phenomenon, The Shack. Having read several negative critiques and the dozens of 5-star reader reviews on Amazon.com, CT’s two article approach--one reflecting on the tightrope relationship between faith and art, the other a mini-treatise on the Nicene theology--shows that the editors have wisely chosen to handle William Young’s book with kid gloves. How does one deal with a best-selling book with potential theological consequences, written “accidentally” by an unknown author? Does one heed the professional critics or the thousands of evangelical readers who faithfully sit every Sunday in the pews (many who subscribe to CT) and feel someone finally is speaking to things they have suffered and are testifying that they “never understood the Trinity before reading the Shack”.

I am not theologically competent to comment on the Nicene fathers and Modalism. I enter this debate from the perspective of publishing. As a writer with my own vision for religious fiction, I have believed for many years that an evangelical would one day write a novel that would change the paradigm in how “Christian fiction” is written in our postmodern world. Of course, it is all too early to tell and The Shack may be just a publishing fluke. However, I hope it opens the floodgates for other writers struggling to bring forth their literary visions. Not all will be theologically oriented. Some will have philosophical, political, or psychological thrusts, but they, like The Shack, will strike dynamic cords in both the reflective evangelical readership and the public at large. I am so thrilled with Young’s story: an unknown who wrote a book as a gift for his kids and self-published his novel together with a couple of friends. It shows that it is possible to bypass both the theological and literary elites, and successfully present ones work directly to the reading public. Hopefully, Young has opened the door and made it easier for the rest of us. Anyone interested in my literary vision can read a presentation at http://www.geocities.com/larwenz/.

Firstly, I don't know anything about the book; I'm just commenting on the second comment above.

I think Glenn's critique seems very vague regarding what the book actually says. How did the author's method of "mak[ing] the Trinity 'palatable' for the masses" forsake Christian tradition or, of more importance in my opinion, Scripture?

But because the book is popular doesn't mean that it is wrong either.

I also find it odd that Driscoll at least has said he has not read the book, but has reviewed an outline. How lazy is it to widely condemn a book that you don't even bother to read.

Let's be honest here... most people "entering the Christian faith for the first time" (not to mention many who have been in the faith for a very long time!) have horrendous theology, and why should we expect anything else? Most Christians don't have the time or energy to sort through all the doctrinal hurdles brought to light by theological study. But isn't that the responsibility of teachers, pastors, lay leaders, etc - to help guide those who are in the process of learning about Christ? Rather than freaking out over a book that perhaps isn't "doctrinally sound", why not read the book together with others and then discuss the pluses and minuses of the story's depiction of doctrine? I mean, it's not like this book is opposed to Christianity; engaging in the conversation is probably better than simply warning against it. That old "don't read/listen/watch" tactic doesn't usually work anyway. (I have a feeling some leaders rely on that tactic because they themselves don't have the time to deal with the real issues the people are facing... but that's another topic...)

The sad part is that nothing is "new under the sun" when it comes to the tendency of Christians to respond negatively to something new. Since a Christian in my early twenties and now in my late seventies, it has never ceased to amaze and disappoint me at this tendency throughout the decades!

This reminds me of a book my son has me reading now, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. There is now a democracization of what is _____________ (fill in the blank: fashionable, true, important).

In this case we see the tension between those with the formal power (those with the credentials, from seminary or where-ever) and those who have informal power by their sheer numbers. These are folks who are not professional Christians, who are not on anyone's Christian payroll.

Christianity, like everything else, is being brought under the rules and practices of democracy, for better or worse.

Those who rightly say truth isn't a matter of majority vote are being voted out by the masses who believe that it is, or should be, according to the rules they vote in.

Christian M. hit the nail on the head for me.

14 years after closing our record Company Scripture in Song we heard the Father tell us He wanted us to produce something because:

'people have been deceived from the beginning as to my true heart for them... I want you to tell them what I am really like'.

So, a few months ago we completed a book with our story and songs to go along with it. Why am i saying this? Because, when I read 'The Shack', I realised that, in a different way, Paul Young has answered the same call to tell people of the heart of a father who actually likes the human beings, He created.

David

You know I have grow very tired of so called Christian authorities such as Chuck Colson, A corrupt (yet forgiven) lawyer who is not an authority except because of the power the often weak minded Christian brothers whom have forgotten that we are to work out our own salvation daily and are told to come let us reason together have empowered so called “Christian Leaders” to become the Way, the Truth and the Life for us because we are to feeble to discover the wonderful mysteries of God for ourselves. The Young book is fantastic and challenging but the Christian power brokers at so afraid that the postmodern mover will cause then financial loss that hey could not hear a fresh wind if it blew in with hurricane force. It is time we tell these self-proclaimed leaders such as Colson, Dobson and many others, from their wealthy privileges hills. It is time for us to let a fresh wind of God to blow through and blow out our rose colored stained windows that puts Almighty God into their little boxes that must not challenge our paradigm of who the great big Creator of the Universe is.

It is a tragedy that a great book is being disected by the insecure and the isogetic ignorant. The book is redemptive in nature and inspiring with the mesage of hope it presents. Metaphors were used repeatedly by the greatest teacher of all time. The trinity metaphor was inspiratinal in tone and instruction. Maybe the religious right is searching for a new whipping horse now that John McCain is riding his undisciplined maverick horse to irrelevance and anti Christian positions. The same critical spirit is apparent in the current ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama. To hear the foaming attacks by right wing conservatives that are based on racism,insecurity and caucasian elitism is disgusting. Maybe we should all be reminded: God is like us..God is not like us. William Young has done the Christian community a great service by challenging silly stereotypes and vested interests. Maybe the critics should promote the reappearance of Latin in the pulpit so that the control and influence they seek would be made easier to protect. Don't know how you handle the prominence a Holy God gave to Balaam's ass in the propagation of timeless truth.

I think the big thing to remember, and I'm in a hurry so I haven't read all the comments in depth, is that this is a work of fiction, much like the Da Vinci code, and other books that have caused controversy of late. The difference is, books such as the Da Vinci code seemingly attacked the church and the dogma surrounding it. The Shack would appear to change key elements of Christian faith, facts that are solid from the Greek translation of the bible, and promote things such as Goddess worship. I'm not against the shack, but I am not for it. I think new Christians should steer clear of it as it may confuse them as to the truth and fact of our faith.

The Shack is a work of fiction. Please don't make us write fact for fiction.

I read "The Shack" as a retired evangelical Presbyterian pastor, and loved it. It breaks stereotypes, and expands perceptions of the persons of the Trinity in wonderful ways, through the use of human forms that sort of "rattle our cages."
This generation has substantially failed in its "fathering." Fathers have not done a good jobs of manifesting the Father's love to their children, and showing His character to them. Therefore, people's images of Him have been flawed, and they have come up with strange stereotypes. In the book, Mack says "I always pictured him as a really big grandpa with a long white flowing beard, sort of like Gandalf in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" (page 73).
The Father is shown to be a Person of warmth, love, mercy, deep understanding, and with a desire to bless Mack in great measure.
The Father (as Papa) says "Many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best versions of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive...and then they call that God....I am not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think" (page 98).
The author portrays the Holy Spirit as a Person. Even leaders in today's American church speak of the Holy Spirit as "it," and can hardly conceive of Him empowering and guiding God's people in very powerful ministry, blessing others and bringing glory to God. This perception of the Holy Spirit surely does not cultivate an interest in being in relationship with Him.
I'm thrilled that so many are reading this book. I think many will be greatly helped.

The Shack is novelized religion for the Oprah generation. Not heresy, but not that great. As for Peterson's endorsement, it is so over-the-top it is hard to take it seriously. Pilgrim's Progress? Having read The Shack, all I can do is LAugh Out Loud. Far closer to PEretti than Bunyan.

Some of the distinguished theologian's comments remind me of a time 2000 years ago when the "correct theologians" considered it heresy worthy of crucifixion when a gangly, unschooled carpenter claimed to be God. And when this carpenter God tried to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, he had the audacity to use metaphors like lost coins, lost sheep, rebellious children, mother hens, seed throwers, yeast, mustard seeds, fishing nets, pearls, landowners...and on and on. How dare he try to explain the majesty of God by using such unholy, simple, day to day material and earthly metaphors.

If Paul didn't mind the motives of others who preached Christ differently than he, why do these theological elitists who have rarely entered into the pain of those in the pews like Young has done in his work of art have such venomous words of criticism. This book is attracting lost people to the the love and grace of our carpenter God. Let the Spirit of God guide them in their journey home rather than ripping your righteous robes and debating how many angels can stand on top of the shack!

Most preachers will never have as much positive impact on their bored worshipers as this beautiful story written from a wounded heart to other wounded hearts. Let's all be full of grace and let God do his work through each of us in His own unique way!

I have read The Shack. It was given to me by a Christian woman who found much comfort in the philosophy/theology proposed by this book. I read the book and found it to be pleasant and written in a manner that would appeal to popular culture.

Read the book as a non-theologian's point of view. We should not read it as if it were serious doctrinal commentary. However, I am afraid that many will. From my perspective its major "problem" is that it proposes Open Theism, i.e. God, in his sovereignty, has limited his own influence and co-works with man to determine the course of events. With Open Theology God does not sovereignty determine the future; rather he works-out the future with man. Furthermore God does NOT KNOW what is going to happen tomorrow, because he does not know what we are going to do.

There is beauty in this book. We see God's love and mercy in dealing with mankind. I was not offended by its portrayal of the Trinity... it is fiction.

If the church at large finds Open Theism to be palatable, then perhaps it is because the church at large does not teach biblical theology to the men and women in the pews. Biblical theology is not always seeker friendly and does not promise certain health and wealth. The fact that so many Christians would consider this book to be a serious explanation of God's dealing with mankind is an indictment of the church's negligence in teaching sound theology.

I DID READ "THE SHACK" AND IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO READ.
AT THE SAME TIME, IN MY WALK WITH GOD AND SEEKING TO KNOW HIM MORE AND MORE, I WAS BLESSED AGAIN BY HIS TIMING FOR ME PERSONALLY.
ALL LEAD UP TO ME INQUIRING ABOUT THIS AUTHOR AND ASKING FOR THIS BOOK AT THE BOOKSTORE. GOD LEADS US TO BE BLESSED AND ENRICHED!
GOD IS INDEED A PERSONAL GOD. AS TO HOW CLOSE ONE DESIRES TO GET TO GOD, HE WILL LET YOU COME AS CLOSE AS YOU WOULD LIKE. GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD, REVEALED TO US IN JESUS, THE CHRIST. HE WOULD DELIGHT IF WE DESIRED TO ENTER INTO THE ONENESS OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT! HIS BEAUTY AND HIS GREATNESS HE WOULD LIKE US TO SHARE IN. HIS LOVING KINDNESS FOR US ENDURES FOREVER. AMEN

I have a dear, unbelieving but searching friend that I have been seeking to help understand the message of the gospel. Because of some deep wounds, she has had deeply distorted views of God and most Christians. While she has been open to dialoguing with me and reading things I have given her to read, she has been unable to let go of her image of God as distant, angry and unreasonable.

For her birthday, I gave her a copy of The Shack. She put it on her book pile and forgot about it for the next few months. One day during the winter we had a snow day. She couldn't get to work so she picked up The Shack. She did not put it down until she had finished it. Tears flowed. For the first time in her life, the ice block around her heart began to melt. I'm convinced the Holy Spirit has used this small book to move her towards grace. I continue to pray for her and give her great things to read, including the Gospel of John.

Recently my friend and I went to hear the author speak. Paul is a man of humor, humility and bubbling joy. His whole story and demeanour declared the goodness and trustworthyness of God.

I can't help but wonder if the people that are so vitriolic in their judgments against this book have read Lewis, Tolkien, MacDonald and other great storytellers that try to "smuggle" truth into their work? I enjoy Systematic Theology but I love it when a great story enlarges my imagination and makes my heart burn. The Shack did that.

Bev

I am a black woman female pastor who just read more than half of The Shack. After careful reading of the Book for any doctrinal errors, which I did not find thus far, I stopped reading the book because of how it left me feeling. It does indeed sound, at first, to be very 'progressive' and almost 'spiritual' to depict God the Father as an African American Woman, Jesus as a Middle Easterner, and the Holy Spirit as an Asian. To some, this may sound heretical, however, I did get the point: that God transends gender, race, etc. ans is beyond our mental ability to comprehend. And this is precisely where and why the book left me feeling uneasy. To me, in trying to portray God as "greater than we think" yet only being able to do so in "images" that we can, or have, seen, I felt as though an image of Him was still being made in my mind, one that was far less than who He is. I believe that this is why we are admonished not to make "ANY image or likeness of Him - not in anything in heaven above, on the earth, or beneath the earth." For even though these images may seem to be "greater or higher" than what we have ever perceived before, in the end, ANY IMAGE that we come up with, falls far short of the Glory of God. I felt that though the book may indeed help some to 'visualize God' and perhaps understand the Trinity better, the downside is that the greatest apect of WHO God is, that which we can not imagine at all, but only perceive in our spirits and "rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory" until we actually get to see Him for ourselves, may be lost.

I too have not read The Shack and am not sure what I'd make of it. For one thing, Colson and Petersen are a couple of my heroes (their books have touched me) and I'd be inclined to take seriously what each had to say. In fact, instead of trashing such leaders, maybe we all need to slow down and be prepared to learn something from one another.

Colson's take (above) on the book, which I read, did give me pause and I could understand his concern about the cringe-inducing passages he cited. (And lest we think this is a Reformed/Arminian issue, imagine what John and Charles Wesley's reactions would have been to such passages!) From observation I've seen that going off track doctrinally can be personally devastating and is no trifling affair. We're talking about The Truth here.

On the other hand, Petersen is no theological slouch and obviously was blessed by the book. Perhaps the reason is that besides being a theologian, Petersen is a poet and creative genius. On some deep level the book spoke to him, even though, I imagine, he might agree with some of Colson's points. Sometimes literature and movies grab us and move us in the right direction, even though we know that there's a lot in them, upon analysis, we might find questionable.

Let's hope God uses the book both to cause people to become more sure of their doctrine and, by the Spirit, to move them in new, fresh ways.

My Shack "fast food" experience started with reading a friend's copy. I read some online blogs and still decided to read it since our Pastor was promoting it from the pulpit. My wife sensed my uptight attitude first and pressed to find out what was wrong. It took some time to share and in the process I gave my wife, daughter and a brother in law copies (his nightstand book = A new Earth by E.Tolle, rehashed new age buddha). So, I'll be there if anyone brings up the Shack to gently guide them to revealed truth in THE LIVING WORD. The Shack is like going to Taco Bell, fast,easy. Yes it wraps the Trinity into an inviting Taco. Always warm, always there whenever you need to feed. Okay, it does remind us to forgive so we can live. The book may sway life's spectators drifting around in spiritual darkness. To claim this could be today's Pilgrim's Progress is wrong. So, being a trendy Xian book = tasty, no calorie junk food. A friendly billboard inviting the hungry to Aunt Jemima's kitchen of Images found on any highway to Hell.Only God could recycle this trash to possibly point a seeker to His Word, His Story, the Bible.

In reading The Shack or any other book, particularly books about our triune God, it needs to be read in light of what scripture tells us about Him. Scripture guides us to do so. So, I would no more read a commentary by Eugene Peterson, Driscoll or Wesley and leave my Bible unopened than I would read a book like The Shack without It at my side. That being said, the critical comments about the book I have read so far sound like comments coming from someone who did not read the whole book and/or didn't read it in context with its own explanations and/or that of the Bible. It doesn't promote modalism nor goddess worship...not in the least. Yes, there are comments made in the book which might not follow Biblical theology to the letter, the book strongly implies an overriding agreement with scripture. For example, there are many instances where the triune God is present with Mack, each Person being represented uniquely and with ultimate authority belonging to God the Father, regardless of the limited man-made picture created by Mr. Young. I have an image of God in my mind, as limited as it is, and I suspect each and every believer and non-believer for that matter has their image as well. Does it make it heresy when we publish our thoughts? That said, Mr. Young in no way was trying to portray God as a female, but having more characteristics than we could ever assign to Him. Like Mr. Young writes in His book, to limit God to our own image of Him wouldn't leave Him with much mystery would it? Don't forget that the book ends with God, the Father, being represented as an older gentleman (showing Mack the way to his daughter's grave). Frankly, I believe this book accomplishes one main goal. God is not and cannot be limited to what we imagine Him to be...He is so much greater. For Mack, God reached out to Him in a particular way...much like God reached out to Jacob and Moses in very different ways. Let's not shoot the author nor burn this book (methaphorically), but rather take the baton handed off by the message of The Shack and love our families, friends, neighbors and enemies. Please show me where this book teaches something different.

P.S. Pastor Gordon, I appreciate your comments most of all that I have read on and off of this site. I found that The Shack broke down the walls of who God is or might be...it took Him out of the box I put Him in. This book has not limited my view of Him, but encouraged me to not lock into my limited ability to know Him. Thank you.

AFTER READING MORE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS BOOK, I AM MORE CONVINCED THAN EVER HOW DIFFERENT AND PERSONALLY GOD RELATES TO EACH OF HIS CHILDREN, AND POTENTIAL BELIEVERS WHO ARE SEEKING. EVERYONE'S JOURNEY TO KNOW OUR GREAT GOD IN A REAL RELATIONSHIP IS UP TO EACH PERSON. DO YOU WAKE UP AND SAY, 'GOOD MORNING' TO YOUR GREAT GOD? HOW WELL DO YOU REALLY KNOW, RELATE TO, CONVERSE, LISTEN TO YOUR WIFE OR HUSBAND OR CHILDREN OR NEIGHBOR? DO YOU SPEND PERPETUAL TIME..."PRAY WITHOUT CEASING..."? DO YOU "WATCH AND PRAY" AS JESUS SAID TO DO? DO YOU SEEK HIS WILL REALLY? ANYWAY, YOU CAN KNOW DOCTRINE, YOU CAN HAVE GREAT KNOWLEDGE...EVEN OF GOD IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT HAVE DEEP, DEEP, ABIDING LOVE FOR JESUS. DO YOU KNOW GOD'S DEEP LOVE FOR HIS SON? ARE YOU LEARNING TO LOVE HIS SON?
IF YOU HAVE FEAR OF READING SOMETHING THAT IS OTHER THAN GOD'S HOLY AND LIVING WORD, THEN YOU ARE BLOCKING THE BLESSINGS GOD DESIRES TO GIVE YOU. KNOW HIS WORD AND ALSO SEE THE BEAUTY OF GOD AND HIS KINGDOM NOW. DO NOT FEAR EVEN WHEN YOU EXPERIENCE A 'NOT KNOWING' TIME...THAT DARKNESS IS THE PLACE WHERE GOD GIVES YOU NEW GROWTH! KEEP SERVING AND LEARNING OF HIM AS YOU DO. DO NOT FEAR!!! THIS BLOCKS YOUR GROWTH IN LOVING AND KNOWING HIM.

I love what Elizabeth Payne wrote. I agree about Idolatry. God does not enjoy having images portrayed of Him that are not who He really is. Many people compare the Shack to even the Chronicles of Narnia in allegory but they differ. When you see Aslan the Lion and you think of Jesus, the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah...and the two images agree. Nowhere in the Bible is God referred to as an African American Woman. That is where the analogies break down. And nowhere does the Bible portray the Holy Spirit as an Asian. In fact, we have to be careful when we do reference the Holy Spirit as anything else but how He is portrayed in the Bible.
That is my take on it all.
God bless.
Robin

I don't know about any heresy, but I am nearly finished reading this book, and it has been of great help to me. For as long as I can remember, even before "becoming a Christian", I have suffered from a grossly distored view of God due to legalism and OCD/Scrupulosity (an article was written on this site back in March about the latter, which was helpful, although I still suffer even after reading Ian Osborn's books, counselling, etc.). The Shack, although being fictional, has probably been the most helpful book I've read concerning the nature of God. My particular form of Scrupe is viewing everything I enjoy as sin. A partial list is secular music, movies, art, fashion/fashion periodicals and basically anything secular, yet I find it difficult to "give them up", and whenever I experience any trials in my life, I blame them on myself for being disobedient to God for my inability to give up my "secular idols". I recently lost two loved ones with 18 months of each other and, along with profound grief, I am torturing myself with guilt that God would have healed them if I had been more obedient and less "secular". At times, I wish He would take me. Hopefully, after completing The Shack, I will find some peace in my heart and soul. Thanks for reading. Kath

WELL, HERE I AM AGAIN STILL LOOKING AT THE COMMENTS FROM READERS OF "THE SHACK". WOW! THIS IS FOR KATH...I WILL PRAY FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SUFFERING AND GOD DOES NOT DESIRE FOR YOU TO BE SUFFERING THIS WAY. I HAD TO STUDY THE WORD 'GRACE', AND GIVE IT TO MYSELF, JUST AS I CONSTANTLY GAVE IT TO OTHERS. YOU (AND I) HAVE BEEN IN PAIN FOR TOO LONG, SO GIVE YOURSELF A BREAK. SEE YOURSELF AS GOD SEES YOU. LOVE YOURSELF LIKE GOD LOVES YOU.
DO WHAT YOU DO AND BE WHO YOU ARE AND KNOW THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT STANDING WITH GOD. SING PRAISES, TELL JESUS HOW YOU FEEL AND KEEP LEARNING TO WORSHIP HIM. THE MORE YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH HIM AND TALK WITH HIM, AND THANK HIM, PRAISE HIM AND HONOR HIM, THE MORE YOU WILL KNOW YOU BELONG TO HIM. FIND WAYS TO SERVE, OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD AND ASK HIM TO GUIDE YOU. THERE IS NO CONDEMNATION NOW THAT YOU ARE IN CHRIST. STUDY HIS WORD AND DON'T LET THE JOY OF SALVATION BE TAKEN FROM YOU. PRAY THE PSALMS. BE STILL AND KNOW GOD IS GOD.(WE ARE NOT). THAT IS COMFORTING TO KNOW! PEACE AND GRACE TO YOU, SUSAN

HI AGAIN...BY THE WAY, I LOVE MUSIC OF ALL KINDS...! I USE DESCRETION BUT I LOVE GREAT MOVIES. I CAN FIND A "SPIRITUAL" LESSON IN MOST MOVIES I HAPPEN TO LIKE AND SEE. SOMETIMES IN SOMEONE'S CREATIVE WORK, THERE IS GOD SPEAKING (TO ME). THE PERSON WHO DID THE CREATIVE WORK MAY NOT HAVE MEANT IT THAT WAY. GOD USES ANYONE TO ACHIEVE HIS PURPOSES FOR HIS KINGDOM. THERE ARE SOME MOVIES I JUST DO NOT GRAVITATE TO, BUT IF A TRUSTED FRIEND, OR ONE OF MY GROWN-UP SONS RECOMMENDS ONE, I LOOK FORWARD TO RENTING IT. I AM KIND OF OLD (OVER 60), FOR A LOT OF THE "SECULAR" MAGAZINES, BUT STILL ENJOY ONE CALLED "MORE" FOR OLDER WOMEN! THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND AND YOU CAN ENJOY GOD RIGHT NOW, IN THIS WORLD. IT HAS TAKEN ME A WHILE TO SEE THE KINGDOM EACH DAY, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. THE MORE I KNOW THE WORD OF GOD, KEEP STUDYING AND PRAYING FOR MYSELF, AND IN INTERCESSION FOR OTHERS, WITH THANKSGIVING AND PRAISES, THE MORE FREE I AM TO ENJOY ALL GOD HAS GIVEN TO ENJOY...EVEN THE CREATIVE WORK OF OTHERS WHO WERE MADE IN HIS IMAGE. I EVEN READ WHAT ATHEISTS, SOME SCIENTISTS AND AGNOSTICS HAVE TO SAY AND AS LONG AS GOD'S WORD IS IN ME AND I KEEP HIS WORD OPEN, THEIR WORDS CANNOT AFFECT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SAVIOR. I EVEN SEE HOW TRUE IT IS THAT ONE MUST BE "BORN AGAIN" TO SEE THE KINGDOM. IT MAKES ME SAD THAT THEY CANNOT 'SEE' AND YET SHOW SO MUCH INTELLECT AND BRILLIANCE. THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND AND SO THEY DISTORT AND MOCK GOD'S WORD. PEOPLE WHO COME TO HIM AS CHILDREN CAN UNDERSTAND GOD'S LOVE AND TRUST HIM...SPEND TIME WITH GOD, PRAY WITHOUT CEASING...DEVELOP A HABIT WITH HIM ON YOUR MIND, AND WATCH AND PRAY AS YOU GO ABOUT YOUR LIFE IN THE WORLD...THAT CAN BE FUN (BLESSINGS ARE FUN) AND YOU WILL FIND GOD USES YOU WITH THAT ATTITUDE. IN GROWING, WE DO BECOME MORE AND MORE AWARE THAT IN LOSING OUR LIFE, THE MORE CHRIST CAN LIVE THROUGH US, SO THERE ARE GROWINTG PAINS. WITH JOY, SUSAN

First, why would anyone post a blog about a book they haven't read?

I finished the Shack a day or two ago and throroughly enjoyed it. I've read the Bible through twice, read more Lewis, Tozer, Murray, Bounds and Spurgeon than most folks I know but still have so much to learn. Like how to love the unlovely.

I've come to the conclusion that if we spent more time practicing the love that Jesus came to teach us about and less time about the doctrines, we'd all be better off. I know He died for me, and because of it, I love Him. The Shack is a fun, imaginative story that shares that simple message. Most of the people that read it won't get the fact that the doctrines may not be perfect (one's opinion of perfect is another story!). If they get the joy and love in relationship and the forgiveness that it illustrates, it may heal.

I hope it does. My Jesus was really good at that healing thing. Maybe He'll appreciate what was at the heart of this book, even though it's about as perfect as a child's fingerpainting. If you're a parent, you know what I mean...

God love us all...

For Susan: I just read your comments. Thank you so much for your help and comforting words -- they did make a difference. I'm not exactly young either, but Vogue is still my favorite magazine.

Once more, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and kind words. I do want to see God as He really is and not the way I view Him. Thanks for helping me. Kath

Derek, you have really hindered your critique because you are trying hard to pander to your constituency! Read this book as a HUMAN and not as an employee of CT!!! Then you will really be able to align yourself to a close-reading critique that doesn't threaten the "CHURCH" and instead speaks to those who inhabit the church (PEOPLE...remember?)!!!!!

I disagree that the trinity representated in the Shack is analogous to Lewis's Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. It is a totally different device.
Though Aslan typified Christ's nature and scacrifice, he was not
Christ.
The Shack's characters ARE the trinity, and their purpose in interacting with Mack is to teach him about who they are, and why they do what they do. Though fiction, it is very dogmatic in its expression of theology.
Also, I noticed that some of the previous posters used the Ad Hominem fallacy to support this book. Hmmm.

It concerns me that we may be "conjuring up" revelation.
Doing this can be very "feel good", yet very dangerous. Putting words in God's mouth is a fearful thing.

Sifting through The Shack, running headlong into one “wait a minute!” after another, it hit me that there was a couple underlying and quite disconcerting premises that were being concealed by these “ought oh” moments.
The shacks construction was begun on a faulty footing. It baffles me how it happened in the first place.
How did the author ever start building at all?
(sorry, I am waxing analogous on you here)
This is tale cut from whole cloth, not a weave of partial truths, truths, and near misses. The details are not the real problem. What fibers were chosen before the work began?
Case in point, lets leave for a moment the depiction of God the father and the Holy Spirit, and examine the(easier to swallow) depiction of the incarnate Christ .
The Jesus of the Bible walked and ate and fellowshipped with his disciples, clearly the familiarity was complete. The intimacy was unmatched. Recall Jesus surrounded by laughing children, and His proclamation that such is the kingdom of heaven.
But when I behold the Jesus of the Bible, I fall in awe at His feet.
When I behold the Jesus of the Shack, I think, nice guy.
Who knows the mind of God? Who can explain Him? Was he made by our hands like the idols?
At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow….
So, back to my “faulty footing analogy”, who is this book about?
And who is the God we worship?
(honest, last post...just finished the book)

i just heard of "the shack" this morning as i was in conversation with a friend. The book was mentioned in a profile on a dating site. After hearing what the referencer was saying about relationships in general......and agreeing but with a caveat...saying that what he was saying is true....but was missing the leaven...."the rest of the story"....it only begs the question.....

why is it so hard for people to change...to change...act....think...and speak what they know to be "right":? and i use the term "right" very loosely as it is a word with very powerful implications...implications that end up enslaving people into bondage beliefing they are free.

it is like the word "tolerant"....this word "tolerant"...in modern terms is used so casually that when people use it they have sense of piety...believing that since they don't say what they are thinking....(which is judging..no matter how you slice it)...they are being righteous.........aka ..being or knowing what "right" is

i have not read "The Shack".....but will..... as i do not like commenting on things that i haven't read....What I have read is the commentaries......and from that have gotten the gist of the controversy brewing.....

I both applaud and understand the passion and motivations that drove himm to write his story.....and also wince at the false validation of beliefs some people will take and pervert.... to defend their positions......

it is viscious circle....and once someone enters the ring in defense or support of their positions.....the proverbial*** "eye" has been efficiently taken off the ball**

and the rest of the story...the part that allows people to truly become and live their authentic selves....."the rest of the story"
is lost in a sea of chaos.....

Again like most successful movies, books, lives, music, etc......their essence embodies "truth" and thus , strikes a chord with humanity......just like a sporting event........you have fans who root for both sides and as long as yoiu are a competitive player.....it is expected to disappoint and draw criticism from the opponents...who are looking thru a lens that is broken...

just like all religions that have the kernels of truth scattered throughout their doctrines....tho fractured kernals resonate and find homes in hearts of people...it is the "rest of the cob" that is missing.... either thru prejudiced bias or blind ignorance...that is the "TRUTH" that will truly give you the peace that passes all understanding and :set you free".....allowing npeople to truly be their authen tic selves that God created them to be.......anything else is just a very cheap imitation.......tho i am compelled to admit..still has value as a stepping stone that is needed in process of being able to embrace the whole "cob"

JJ

psyphter@gmail.com

CHRIST CAME TO THE WORD TO GIVE US THE TRUE IMAGE OF THE FATHER. I NEED NO OTHER VISUAL AID THAN CHRIST AND SCRIPTURE. I CAN'T HIDE FROM GOD AMONG WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR DON'T THINK. I WILL STAND BEFORE GOD ON MY OWN RECORD NOT ON WHAT OTHERS THINK OR AGREE WITH. WITH THE HELP OF SCRIPTURE AND THE HOLY SPIIRT, I REALLY DON'T NEED THE SHACK OR OPHRAH. I NEED TO READ THE BIBLE DAILY PRAY AND LISTEN TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WORK OUT WHAT GOD HAS WORKED IN.
JIM.

Sorry, I am stumbling around trying to find the core of what seems to have gone awry for me in this story.
The Bible exhorts us: “study yourselves approved, a workman who needs not be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth”.
In this debate, I am beginning to recognize that the real issue might be authority. I believe that our authority as Christians is God’s revelation of Himself in His word, in the incarnate Christ, and the person of the Holy Spirit. I believe that we are to discern and test all things by their consistency with what God has revealed, for all He has revealed is in harmony, and in that sense can be tested. I believe in absolutes. I believe we must diligently discern what is Biblical, to guard against anything less that the truth. It is our responsibility to others in the body.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
That said, if we do not share the same starting point, we really can’t debate this issue well. We are speaking a different language of sorts. Reading some of the post, I realize that some Christians take a more relative approach to truth. Pragmatism is more the guiding principle. This is a more postmodern approach. I don’t mean this as a critizism, more as an observation. This is not to imply that we do not believe in the same God, the same Jesus.
Despite what the book implies, and some of the posters, I don’t feel it is fair to characterize those of us who are troubled with this book as stodgy fundamentalist. I place no value on form or style. I can worship as comfortably in a praise service, or a high church mass as I can in a cornfield.
But, Paul insisted that Timothy “guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge” "—
So, in short, I believe that my discomfort with this book is not based on this little issue vs that little issue, but rather, a different underlying philosophy.

Well. I've read these comments and I've read the book, The Shack. People are still so concerned about doctrine and theology, the very thing that Jesus protested against. We get so wrapped up in "doing it according to Scripture and Doctrine" that we forget the greatest knowledge of God is to experience Him. Those who have experienced the presence and love of the Lord are not bothered with splitting hairs. We are not afraid that some fictional fantasy will lure us away. The book did not give me any cause for concern and I found it interesting reading. I was brought up with Conservative Cristian Doctrine and know it well, but really knew the love of the Lord when I experienced Him through his Love and Presence. Lois

Having not previously heard anything about "The Shack" I devoured the book. I then re-read it, underlining bits and making notes all the while believing that this was Mack's testimony retold "with consorted effort towards accuracy" as stated by the author in the forward. My family’s trial’s and tragedies parallel Mack’s in so many ways so this book gripped me deeply. THEN I DISOVERD IT WAS FICTION. I am now feeling confused and deceived as well as a fool for believing ‘Mack's’ revelation. If I had known clearly from the start how the author came to this book, I probably would never have persisted with it. I am not a reader of 'Christian fiction'. I have heard and witnessed enough incredible Christian testimonies to believe there is no need for creating fictitious ones. I have read many reviews and comments about the book, all focusing on it’s theology and doctrine. I am however concerned about my many loved ones and God’s loved ones who may read this book and be disappointed in the same way I was. Many of us are struggling to trust Him as it is … Am I the only one feeling this way? Did I miss something? Am I just really naïve? I welcome any wisdom.

PLEASE DISREGARD MY PREVIOUS COMMENT - THIS IS THE UPDATED AND CORRECTED VERSION

Having not previously heard anything about "The Shack" I devoured the book. I then re-read it, underlining bits and making notes, all the while believing that this was Mack's story retold "with conserted effort towards accuracy" as stated by the author in the forward.

My family’s trial’s and tragedies parallel Mack’s in so many ways so this book gripped me deeply.

THEN I DISCOVERD THAT IT WAS FICTION.

I am now feeling confused and deceived as well as a fool for believing ‘Mack's’ revelation. If I had known clearly from the start how the author came to this book, I probably would never have persisted with it. I am not a reader of 'Christian fiction'. I have read, heard and witnessed enough incredible Christian testimonies to believe there is no need for creating fictitious ones. All the many reviews and comments about the book seem to focus on the book's theology and doctrine. Personally I was deeply moved by the allegories in this book.

I do question however if the author was deceptive about the purpose and nature of this story. Perhaps I am just a naiive reader. But the truth is that the majority of readers out there are naiive. I am concerned about my many loved ones and God’s loved ones who may read this book and be disappointed in the same way I was. Am I the only one feeling this way? Did I miss something? Any wisdome is most welcome.

I think the Shack was an attempt to explain tragedy in light of a loving God. But Young limitted his understanding by seeing God’s love in our terms.
He had an great understanding of how love works on the human level. It was like sitting with an incredibly empathetic counselor, and going through a level of pschological healing.
But this book simply does not reveal the God of the Bible.
It is a mistake to divide this into , God is revealed as a loving God vs a judging God. I think that is what Young tried to do. He was troubled that God was misunderstood, and He wanted to go to bat for Him.
But the conflict lies in those on both teams so to speak don’t understand Gods love or his sovereignty , and are fighting it out with empty arguements.
What lacks in the church today is a true revelation of the God, and this is what is created to fill the void.

Jesus was not opposed to doctrine, He was opposed to false doctrine.
Paul mentions doctrine in 2 Timothy 4:3 saying that:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
So to say that Jesus is against doctrine is inaccurate. The original Greek in this passage is didaskalia which is simply teaching or precepts. I don’t think we can find evidence that Jesus was against that, he was the teacher..
I wonder why there is such strong feelings against doctrine? Christ’s words and the words of His apostles are precious.

I read the background of why the author wrote his book, and found his own personal story compelling and provoking of great sympathy.

So trying to scratch deeper into why this book is troubling, this came to me almost as an epithany today.
The voice. It was not His voice.
Many of us have great sadness in our lives. The writer's experience was not too different that my own. (And God has blessed us both.) But, you see, it really isn’t about us.
Jesus said that the sheep would know His voice. I have known the despair of needing, wanting an answer. Something that would just make it all make sense. Job, a man that suffered beyond my ability to even comprehend, said in the end: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
God reveals, we can not uncover.

Some comfort: this song by Stonehill speaks of the only voice we should heed.
IN THIS LAND OF THE WALKING WOUNDED
IN THIS DESERT OF COUNTLESS SORROWS
I WILL CLING TO HIS HAND TODAY AND FEAR NOT FOR TOMORROW

IN MY HEART I HAVE MADE THIS PROMISE
WITH THIS SONG I DECLARE MY CHOICE
I WILL WALK WHERE THE SHEPHERD LEADS AND HEED NO OTHER VOICE

IN THE CHILL OF MY DARKEST HOUR
I AM SAVED FROM MY DEEP DESPAIR
FOR THE FATHER WHO LOVES HIS CHILDREN HEARS MY TRUSTING PRAYER

IN MY SOUL THERE IS ONE LIGHT SHINING
FROM THE FLAME OF MY TRUE BELIEF
AND ITS EMBERS CANNOT BE QUENCHED OR ROBBED BY ANY THIEF

IN THE END WE ARE NOT FORGOTTEN
AND OUR JOURNEY IS NOT IN VAIN
FOR THE MASTER WHO BOUGHT US HERE
WILL LEAD US HOME LEAD US HOME AGAIN

Dear ones, despite what feels good for the moment, walk where the shepards leads, and heed NO other voice.

Elizabeth Payne: I absolutely agree with you. I understand that Young was intending to cross boundaries, to challenge our pre-conceived notions of who we think God is - but the tactic of using different races and genders failed utterly, IMO. By portraying the Trinity as three human beings of different races and sexes, Young merely limits my view of God within his novel; I never did succeed in getting beyond these confines. God can never be portrayed correctly by humans. He is too big and too mysterious to be limited to any attempt at a physical description - even if He does cross the borders of gender, race, class, occupation, etc., etc., no description is ever big enough to hold Him.

That is one of the major problems I had with The Shack (I won't even go into storyline interest and originality, character depth, narrative style or any other literary quality). It tried to explain too many mysteries about God that are simply unexplainable - always have been, always will be. Rather than expand our consciousness of who God is, the novel ties several of God's incomprehensible aspects up into a nice, neat little package for us to hold in our own tiny human hands. Humans have attempted to comprehend God's full nature - and God's unsurpassable and unmerited love - from the beginning of humanity. No one has yet succeeded at uncovering anything except that which God Himself revealed in Scripture. To surmise our own answers to these unfathomable mysteries, such as Young did with no firm biblical foundation in many instances...well, I feel extremely uncomfortable with it, to say the least. Young claims that traditional Christians try to limit God not only to a box, but to a book, the Bible. God has no limits, and He also could never have any limits within the Bible (of which He is the very Author). No Christian could ever verily claim to comprehend everything in the Bible and must recognize that even the little we know about God from Scripture is still infinitely beyond any Christian's understanding. A lifetime, no, a millenium of biblical studies will not reveal answers to some of the questions that Young seems to answer so easily. And nor will other forms of divine revelation, like Creation itself, or the Spirit's presence in our lives. There are some things, I believe, that God wants to keep a mystery from us. If we knew everything there was to know about God, there would be no wonder or awe. I believe that if someone like Mack were, in fact, to have really met with God like in The Shack, God would not have revealed to him the explanations to every mystery of His existence anyways. Even if He did choose to do so, it would be no small feat for us humans to wrap our teensy little minds around it. So I must ask this question: who here is trying to squeeze God into a book? Is it not Young himself in The Shack, as he inadeptly tries to explain all the intricate details of the Trinity's nature among other ungraspable aspects of God and thus forcing Him into his own limited perceptions?

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Don't apologize, Erica. Your post was one of the most insightful on this blog.

I am and have been a Baptist pastor for over 20 years and am very conservative in my beliefs and my view of the scripture. I just finished reading The Shack and the long list of comments on this blog.
I did not approach the book as a theological study of the nature of God but as a testimony of a person's understanding of their own personal experiences with God.

I was reminded of and deeply touched by a couple of important truths about God. First, God love us…he has a great desire that we would know Him in a real and personal way and that we would not be afraid of Him but that we would trust Him with our lives. He is indeed touched by our grief, as is written in John 11 in the story of Lazarus’s death, and that He moves to heal the deep wounds in our lives. Second, God can and does move in the circumstances of our lives to accomplish good things. In 1988, my wife and I lost a four year old son, and through that experience we came to know God is a much deeper and loving way and also have had many opportunities to see God use a “tragedy” to touch and heal the lives of other people.

It would be hard to think that every time I shared our experiences with God’s grace that people would so caught up in judging my words that they would miss our hearts. I believe that this is what William Young was trying to do. I was encouraged by the book.
Doug

HI...THIS IS FOR DOUG. I TOO WAS ENCOURAGED BY THIS BOOK AND WHAT WILLIAM YOUNG DID IN WRITING THIS BOOK. AGAIN, OUR GOD IS A PERSONNAL GOD, AND THE GOD OF ALL CREATION. I AM JUST GRATEFUL EACH DAY THAT I CAN KNOW THAT LOVE AND LEARN TO LOVE FROM HIS LOVE OF ME. MY PRAYER FOR CHRISTIANS IS THAT THEY REALIZE THAT BEING A "CHRIST-ONE" IS NOT A RELIGION. RELIGION IS MAN MAKING GOD WHO HE WHATS GOD TO BE. A CHRIST-ONE KNOWS GOD REACHED DOWN...CAME DOWN...TO REACH US IN CHRIST. HE LOVED US, HE GRACED US, HE WANTS US. IT IS ABOUT HIS LOVE AND ALL THE CHARACTER QUALITIES THAT WE CANNOT BEGIN TO COMPREHEND, BUT CAN TRUST BECAUSE OF THE FAITH OF CHRIST WHO SHOWED US THE WAY AND THE PERFFECT HUMAN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER.

I too have read The Shack and the many posts found herein. This is a book of fiction and an expression of Young's experience in faith. He never intended for it to become the Pilgrim's Progress of our generation, he meant it to pass along his view of God and his experience of faith to his children.
We should not view it as a great theological study or a great theological threat. It is merely one man's point of view put to paper. In the USA we have a constitutionally protected freedom of expression, so that we might each share our point of view and learn from each others'. Let's not make more of The Shack than that.
Can God use The Shack to bring people to Him? He absolutely can do that, even if this book contains things of heretical nature (though I am not saying that it does). God promises that He can bring good out of anything for those who love Him, and I take Him at his word.
If God has used this book to bless you, then I say PRAISE GOD! If you instead have elected to snap into Christian paranoia because someone wrote down what he believes, then I say Satan get behind me. I have learned much by listening to the expressions of faith of other believers and allowing the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide me in discerning God's truth. To do otherwise, in my mind, is to limit the paths through which God can teach us.
I ask God blessings on all of you.

William P. Young’s much discussed book, “The Shack”, is interesting for a reason that does not seem to have been discussed so far: It turns into exactly the opposite direction of former attempts at dealing with an age-old question (called “Theodizee” by philosophers since Leibniz, 1710, but discussed already by Greek philosophers): how the idea of a personal, almighty, all-knowing, merciful, loving, and just GOD can be reconciled with the random, undeserved suffering of innocents in this world.
One could say, that this question has acquired new relevance with the development of world-wide news-media that keep us informed daily about wars, “ethnic cleansings”, natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis), slowly starving children … and – on the other hand - the unpunished demise of people like Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot, who died peacefully in their beds.
But an observant and compassionate person does not really need the news-media to ask questions: Each day, all around us there are children being born … with very unequal gifts and equipment for life: Some intelligent or gifted in some special field … others outright stupid from the very beginning, some beautiful and attractive … others ugly and unattractive, some attractive and intelligent … others ugly and stupid (some doubly blessed and some doubly cursed), some into loving and supportive families … others into broken homes or no homes at all. Where is God’s “justice” in that? (Just watch at a children’s fair a group of child-cripples - some of them blind - with pale and distorted little faces being pushed in wheelchairs by constantly changing “volunteers”. They might never find love, will never date, never compete, always depend on others…) In other words: It’s not only what we do to each other, that causes undeserved misery. The injustice starts right at our birth!
Or look on your way to work under the bridges where the homeless live! Why them? Why not you? Who would choose that lifestyle? …
You end up asking yourself: How is it possible, that - even nowadays! – a majority of the somewhat well-to-do (in the American Bible-belt supposedly over 80 %!) manages to “look the other way” and still believe in a just and loving God?! And most of these “believers” often quote the Bible and claim that they know it. Do they not see, that the Bible – especially the Old Testament – is full of cruelty, random killings, a primitive, tribal mentality that led us into wars and still causes human misery?
I can only think of two reasons for this kind of “blind belief”, that capacity of ignoring facts that anyone can observe, refusing to acknowledge and integrate it into their “Weltbild”:
One is mental conditioning: It is interesting to observe how many people – struck by disaster and really having no reason any longer to believe in a merciful and just God – hold on to their religious upbringing … just feeling helpless and desperate but not having enough energy left to rebel and question God’s “kindness” …
The other – and more important - one is our psychological need to believe in something that gives meaning to our lives and relieves us of the fear of death and its uncertainty. Exactly this need is being addressed by religion, any religion. And in combination with the first factor it makes us hold on desperately to those religions we happen to be brought up in … even in the face of contradicting observations.
Now – to return to what was stated in the first paragraph above – somewhat sophisticated Christian thinkers (and many theologians amongst them) tried to alleviate the dilemma outlined above by “depersonalizing” God, away from the threatening father-image (mainly of the Old Testament) to a more and more abstract concept of “creative power” and focusing on the figure of Jesus, who is supposed to symbolize love and forgiveness.
This, however, did not really solve the problem, how the cruelties and injustices in this world could be reconciled with an almighty, loving and JUST God, be it the father or the son (the Holy Ghost always remained kind of abstract). When asked, most theologians prefer not to comment on this. If pushed, they will answer, that it is the freedom of choice, misused, since Adam and Eve ate the apple, which created this horrible world. In other words: It is not God, who caused it to go so wrong, but US. HE only allowed it to happen … knowing very well how limited our capacities for the right insights and actions were/are …
This idea, in my mind, is almost as grotesquely wrong as entrusting a crocodile with building a computer … and simply does not fit with the idea of an all-knowing God.
W. P. Young does not seem to find a better answer in his book. But he completely differs from the lately prevailing depictions of God by transplanting the trinity into a US lower-middle-class horizon: God-father becomes a comfortable, friendly Afro-American woman (called “papa”), Jesus a somewhat Jewish looking wood-worker, and the Holy Ghost an Asian woman. They talk and act like a warm-hearted, down-to-earth American family (they cook and eat a lot and never fail to wash dishes … ;-). They definitely display a sense of humor. Only sometimes, when core-questions are touched on in their conversations with the narrator, they suddenly sound abstract, which often makes the meaning of their pronouncements difficult to understand.
But do they solve the main question of this book: Why God allowed the abduction, (most likely sexual) mistreatment, and finally murder of the narrator’s beloved little daughter to happen? I DON’T THINK SO!
The narrator is helped somewhat by his lengthy conversations with the “trinity” and in the end even “forgives” the killer of his daughter, though not very convincingly. The latter, most likely a deranged pervert beyond help, is caught in the end. But the basic question of this (otherwise well-written) book, the problem of Theodizee, is not being answered. It is rather washed away in a lot of talk about the love of God for us and us loving God and each other. It is basically sentimental, but its sentimentality is cleverly disguised behind common sense humor and the ordinariness of its protagonists.
Did we really expect an answer to the question that has tormented generations of believers (and especially non-believers)? I doubt it. The great echo this book has found is only indicative of our despair.

Cairen,
I totally understand your confusion. I too thought the book was a "True" story. The foreword of the book is what led me to believe this. My wife handed me the book and I didn't turn it over to read the back, I just started reading. Had I known it was fiction I would have read it in an entirely different light. I must say the depiction of Missy's kidnapping and death had me wanting to start looking for this serial killer myself.
The book is well written and I believe that it was written with the best of intentions, I just wish the author had made it more clear in the beginning that it was just a story. While, I haven't lost a child to murder we did loose our first child 5 months into the pregnancy so I did relate on an emotional level with Mack. However, I have never questioned God's love for me and I am glad that the book rightly pointed out that we must go to God through Jesus His son. Since I know now that it is a work of fiction I won't spend too much time trying to discern the "truth" in the book versus scripture. I will just enjoy it for what it is, a well written story that gives one man's example of how the God head (Trinity) works together and interacts with man.

James 3:1 says "Let not many be teachers for they will receive a stricter judgment." Here is the danger that we teach incorrectly and cause many to be led astray and into confusion. Jesus did not come to start a new religion but to demonstrate how we are to live and then He died on the cross to reconcile us back to the Father. Everything else is basically peripheral. So if we teach, which is what the author is doing even though he claims it is fiction, we may be deceiving some believers and unbelievers to not truly follow Christ which He commanded us to do. Beware of anything that does not lift up the cross and Christlikeness. Let each one of us individually search the Scriptures to know the true will of God and not depend on anyone but the Holy Spirit who was promised to teach us all things.

Holy Smoke!!!!!!!! This book does not give any reference to God's Work "The Bible" as the way to forgivness, grace and mercy. Does not give any scripture to check his reason against. Does not elevate Father, Son & Holy Spirit-tries to bring it down and make it human. The Trinity is not human-not yesterday, today, tomorrow or forever. God tells us I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I never change. " I Am the I Am in both the Old and New Testament. We are told in 1st Corinthians 13: "When I was a child I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, when I became a man I put away childish things." Stop being children-Study the Word and grow up. We are also told to "study to show our selves approved-to get knowledge and understanding."
God created us and looked upon us and said "It is very good." God created us with personality and choice. Genesis also tells us that Adam and Eve sinned ( by choice-disobedience-fallen man. All is due to oritinal sin.
God does not chase us-God does not pursue us down any road we choose to follow-we are to choose-do we love him or not-He does not grab us and snatch us from the brink-we are to choose-do we obey him or not? Genesis also tells us that man will surely die-thru Adam & Eve original sin-Murder and envy entered the world when Cain slew Able-Instant gratification or me me me-greed-thru Esau & Jacob-Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup-Jacob deceived his father to receive the blessing-this was foretold in the womb when Rebecca felt them fighting and questioned. The older shall serve the younger-
Jealousy caused Joseph to be sold into slavery and gotten rid of his brothers thought. FOLKS!!!!! just read Genesis and you will understand-you will get a picture of the love and mercy of God. Even after God decided to destroy the world due to original Sin- he decided to save Noah and his family. Why? God told Noah to build an ark-in the middle of the desert-no water to be seen-Noah obeyed (OBEDIENCE)are you listening-Noah and his family along with a way for the world to begin again-and what did Noah do-He invented wine-got drunk-and his son sinned by looking upon his nakedness and then telling everybody about it. Nothing had changed-God decided that he would not destroy the world again by water so he placed a rainbow in the sky to remind us and Noah of this.
God began to make preparations for his blessed son Jesus Christ to come into the world to be the perfect sacrifice for all of us-we do have to choose him-acceptance (Jesus) rejection (hell) life (Jesus) or death (Hell) Light (Jesus) or darkness (hell) Obedience (God) disobedience (Hell)

John tells us -when people were arguing about who they were following and he said" I baptize you with water-there is one that will come after me that will baptize you with fire-the Holy Spirit-One whose shoes I am not worthy to unlatch. I must decrease so he can increase-

Are we decreasing so that God may increase or are we elevating humans to the level of "glory-praise and honor instead of God?"
Are we calling them awesome instead of God?

In Matthew:Jesus was asked by Scribes and Pharaises what was the greatest commandment thinking they were going to trap him-Jesus replied
The 1st and greatest commandment is "Love the Lord Your God with all your heart soul and mind and the 2nd is like unto it "Love thy neighbor as thyself." On this hangs all the law and the prophets.
What are all of you missing that is praising this book and calling the author "aswesome?" READ THE "BIBLE" AND EVERYTHING WILL BE MADE PLAIN TO YOU"
Why do you rely on a mere sinful human being to bring you peace and comfort? God Have Mercy, Lord Have Mercy, God Have Mercy.

S D Holland September 24, 2008

The comment posted by Joe, June 3rd is written beautifully with boldness and compassion. My sentiments exactly!!!!

I'll use this book and many others to open a dialogue about Jesus.
THANK YOU Mr. Young!

This is to S. D. Holland who wrote on Sept. 24th. I really liked your overview of Genesis, and that biblical history. It was a pretty good take on things. I also have this concern in many of the churches today of elevating humans to being little 'gods'. It seem people really tend to want a 'rock star' person to grab onto and honor. There seems to be a forgetfulness of giving ALL HONOR and GLORY to JESUS, our Lord and our God.
The one thing that I do feel is something I believe God uses me for is to be a "channel" of peace, love and comfort to any and every person I come in contact with, or who comes to my mind for prayer. Each day I pray to allow the Holy Spirit to work inside me, and to give me willingness and consciousness of Him leading me. We do learn from others, and from other writings than the Bible. I am truly sorry that so many Christians today do now know the Bible, and all the peace, love and comfort that comes from studying and praying and learning of the true character and nature of GOD. I am so sorry that people cannot see the tremendous and greatest love story ever told and receive that love for themselves. I am grateful for the hope I have going into eternity. I pray for all to have that hope now and keep faithful to our Eternal God.