Next Friday, The Shack opens nationwide, prompting full theaters, plenty of box office profits, and apparently, a bunch of ticked off conservative pastors.
I get it. I really do.
I read the book when it was first released back in 2007. When I finished, I was simultaneously impressed and fearful. I was impressed because it was truly a riveting novel that deals with real life issues of pain that too few churches are willing to honestly address. I was fearful because the “god” portrayed within its pages isn’t the one true and living God who has revealed Himself to us in Scripture.
The “god” of the Shack is air. It doesn’t exist. It’s a worthless and damnable idol.
My reasons for making such a broad, sweeping claim are numerous, and too many to list here. If you are interested in a detailed theological critique of the book, I really cannot improve upon that given by Tim Challies here. Principally, the author’s view of God as presented in this story reflects an ancient heresy known as modalism–a doctrine that conflates the clear Biblical distinctions between the members of the Trinity and as such, compromises the role each plays in the process of redemption.
There are other major issues as well, but in the end, the biggest problem with the novel is that it presents–as an answer to our deepest pain–the theological equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster. I find it ironic that the main protagonist is played by Sam Worthington of Avatar fame. The Shack is about as accurate in its view of ultimate reality as Avatar.
As a theologian deeply concerned about accurately representing God as He has revealed Himself, these facts concern me. But as a pastor whose responsibility it is to point people to the God of Scripture in the midst of their deepest pain, these facts scare me for the sake of their souls.
So what exactly should pastors do in response to what we all know will take place next Friday?
Last week, I sent an email to our staff reminding them that our church family will not be promoting this film in any way. No one on our payroll is permitted to buy tickets, rent theaters, take groups to the movie, or anything else that would give the impression that Covenant Church approves of this film and its depiction of God. Its one thing to take in a movie as an individual. Its quite another to promote something that is likely to be contrary to Christian faith.
But as a Pastor, I must also recognize another reality. People are going to see this movie! I have told our staff that I will see it, mostly just to compare its contents with that of the book. They too are encouraged to see it as individuals. Why? Because our people are going to be buying tickets. Their non-churched and non-Christian friends will buy tickets too. If when returning to church all they see in response from their leaders is protest, what will they have learned from us?
So, here are three reasons I think EVERY pastor should watch this film, and be ready to interact with its contents with your people.
1. From a cinematic and artistic standpoint, it will probably be an excellent movie. How do I know this? One name: Octavia Spencer! It would appear that audiences can anticipate stellar acting from a phenomenal cast of talented people.
Though it remains to be seen, I suspect that for the sake of time and content, much of the doctrinal substance of the book may be absent from the film, leaving a number of “blanks” that are going to be filled in by someone. Why shouldn’t that someone be a faithful pastor?
One of the biggest and most legitimate complaints about “Christian” movies is that they are, well, terrible! For the most part, this is because the characters are “flat” and issues are all “black and white.” There is very little tension to resolve–only an affirmation of what we already believe so that we can feel good about ourselves. My friend Alvin Reid has observed that “our theology IS black and white, and it should be, but we live lives in color!” He’s right, and I fully expect that this film will demonstrate well the “living color” of our lives–particularly the painful parts. It is possible to enjoy a good movie, or a good book, without blindly accepting everything you read or see. Pastors, this is our opportunity to model for our people how to do just that.
2. The movie will prompt conversations and questions Pastors need to answer. The pain depicted in the book and film is all too real for too many people in our churches and communities. Many people are going to see this film because they think that in it they will find the path to healing. If the “god” presented in the film is compatible at all with the “god” presented in the book, they won’t find it. Or worse, they will think they have found it, and forever be inoculated to the real thing.
If Pastors and church leaders are faithful in responding with compassion to the issues that will certainly be raised as a result of this film, we can point our people and their friends to a God who can bring them genuine healing. But if our disposition causes them to return from the theater, only to see in the pulpit those two old, grumpy guys from the muppets yelling “Boo!” then we miss out on the chance to find real answers.
3. This is an opportunity! The most foundational question of faith is “Who is God?” If you get that question wrong, it only goes downhill from there, and this is the fundamental danger of a book like The Shack.
But great opportunity lies here as well for pastors. This film will prompt conversation about God, and who He really is!
Pastors who don’t willingly join that conversation are derelict in their duties both to Christ and His people.
People in our churches are going to see this film. Their non-Christian friends will see it as well, and our people need to be equipped to have those conversations by pastors who model how to do it well. So let’s not merely shrug our shoulders and allow our people to absorb idolatry unknowingly. But conversely, let’s be more than the grumpy old guys who pour cold water over people’s warm experiences with no explanation why.
Let’s engage. And in doing so, lets faithfully give people the real thing!
Editor’s Note: Dr. Joel Rainey is the Lead Pastor at Covenant Church, Shepherdstown, West Virginia. This was originally published at Joel’s blog, themelios.
Well said. Amen.
Joel, one point that Challies makes in a recent blog post is that he will not see the movie to review it, because he believes it to be a violation of the second commandment. What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Josh, I respect Challies, but don’t agree with his assessment here. Anthropomorphic depictions of God are not inherently a violation of the 2nd commandment, as the intent of that command in context is, I believe, to prohibit any created thing from becoming an object of worship. Such depictions of God don’t inevitably lead there, so the presenation of God as a black woman is really not one of my concerns. In fact, I would contend this to be one of Protestantism’s huge mistakes in history–removing art and icons for fear of a 2nd commandment violation. It’s why most Protestant churches have a decor that looks like a dentist’s office. But that’s another subject for another day. 🙂 Sorry I was delayed in responding, and I hope this helps.
Good thoughts, Joel. Your post makes me want to think through some of the issues you brought up about whether to see it or not.
I would feel comfortable saying to my people, “While we don’t vouche for it, let’s go see it together so we can discuss it.” Sounds pretty much like what we should say about any movie (or even Sunday School curriculum).
I read the book, and I think most including you and Tim Challis do not understand the book at all. I have heard Paul Young speak and briefly had the opportunity to meet him and I think you guys have it wrong.
God is God. He is also a very personal God who meets us where we are and gives us what we need. He is there in times of personal grief. Grief so strong that one cannot seem to go on with life until getting through what seems impossible to get through. And we can’t on our own. This is where He comes in to heal us. Not just through the written word, but actually comes to us in His Spirit.
If we need a mother’s love or tender love, He provides this. If we need a gentle word, He provides this. Whatever it is to heal us, which in this book was the murder of a child, He is.
I think this post and that of Tim Challis accurately characterized the message of the book. It is a heretical explanation of how God relates to us when we are in need.
I agree with Debbie whole heartedly. I read the book when it first came out. I read all the negative feedback that the Churches were saying. I am glad that I chose to let the Holy Spirit guide me. I not only read it once, I actually read it several times. I found it the most compelling book I have ever read. I was extremely impressed with the creative liberties that the author took in the writing of this book. I was not jolted with the fact that God was depicted as a Black woman like many pastors were. Later in the story the reason for this is explained. This book walks it’s readers through one of the most openly raw, painful tragedies that a parent can ever experience. It touches you deep within your soul and allows you to face your deepest fears. Forgiveness is a topic that every church touches on. This book allows it’s readers to FEEL Forgiveness! I honestly believe that any Pastor who forbids their congregation to view this movie is doing them a great injustice. If you fear this movie…what does that say about your ability as a Pastor? What does that say about your Faith in an Almighty God who has the power to touch us all and meet us where we are at? Besides, where in the book does the Author state that this is a theological study of the Holy Trinity? This book is an enigmatically portrayed view of God as “Daddy”, as “Papa” …it has personified God as someone we can talk to and actually spend time with. From where I sit…this should make Pastoring a whole lot easier!
Denise, I think you are seriously mistaken about this, but I respect your perspective. However, as a pastor, I would not “forbid” my congregation from seeing this movie. I would warn them, that in my view it has serious problems by misrepresenting God, but I would encourage them to base their beliefs on Scripture not this book or a movie based on it. I’m not afraid of this movie but I am concerned about how easily people are lead astray by attractively packaged lies. Your comment is kind of an illustration of the problem. You have immersed yourself in the book and find nothing seriously wrong with it. Could it be that you yourself have been misled? I don’t think such a distorted view of God makes ministry easier because some people are deeply attached to false teachings that feel right to them. For example, if someone reads a powerful novel or sees a well-done movie that portrays homosexuality as morally acceptable to God and they struggle with those desires, that material may be very persuasive to them, making it harder for them to follow the clear teachings of the Bible.
Denise,
While I appreciate your comment and the heart it comes from, I must take issue with one point in your post. You said “I chose to let the Holy Spirit guide me.” Denise, the Holy Spirit is not going to “guide you” to something that is contrary to God’s Word. It is just not going to happen. Why? Because Jesus has told us, in scripture, that the role of the Holy Spirit is to be our Counselor. To guide us to heresy, which contradicts God’s Word, would be the opposite of godly counsel.
The problems with The Shack are many. If it had been presented as merely a work of fiction, I would have fewer issues with it. I am used to those outside the church misunderstanding and misapplying scripture. But WPY claims to be one of us and he is clear, this is both allegorical and theological in nature. As such, it is filled with inaccuracies at best and heresy at a couple of points- specifically its portrayal of the Trinity in a modalistic fashion, and inferring (via scars) that God the Father died on the cross.
I have read the book. It was a sad story. I understand its appeal, but I don’t think it helps us come to a right understanding of God. Scripture has many passages on grief and anger. There are also much better theological resources on the subjects covered in The Shack that are just as accessible and more orthodox.
I hope you don’t feel like I am jumping on you. I just wanted to give you some context as to why many of us don’t like the book and aren’t excited about the movie. As a pastor, bad theology in popular culture makes my job harder, not easier.
Thank you for your comments Denise. I am in agreement. Have a wonderful day. Cindy
It is a very dangerous thing to re-image the Trinity and put words in God’s mouth that he has not spoken. This movie and book could very well be beautifully packaged poison. I don’t encourage boycotts and protests of movies because such a reaction tends to cause more people to be curious and see them. But I will warn people in our church and we won’t be taking a church group to see this.
Steve: Have you read the book?
Steve, I have read your comment on my post and I am glad you will not forbid your congregation from viewing this movie. Just to clarify, I have not been led astray by the very colorful content of this book. I do, however, take a different perspective than You. There is so much garbage in this world and in the Cinema that when there is something, anything produced that encompasses any part of God… I feel like yelling Hallelujah! Instead of focusing on all the negativity that the viewing of this movie MIGHT cause your flock, why not see the positive. While the Godhead may not be described exactly as a theologian might describe the Trinity. The Trinity IS represented! The Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are ALL THERE! Hallelujah!!!! One of the most complicated things for Christians to perceive is the Godhead. The book and movie give each a personality and distinctive purpose as individual parts of God. Yes, the writer took some creative liberties; but, as I have already said, “This book is a work of fiction”. To me the message isn’t “How accurate can we describe the Godhead so as to not offend the Pastors around the world” …the message is “My Son, I love you so much that I don’t want you to continue to suffer. Let me show you how to FORGIVE. Let me help you through the “FORGIVENESS” process. For it is through FORGIVENESS that you will release yourself from the enormity of the pain and suffering that this tragedy has caused you”!!!!! What a wonderful message!! People all over the World… Christian and Non-Christian alike, NEED to learn of the LOVE of the Father. I choose to see the positive things that this movie can accomplish. Main Stream Media!!!! Can you believe it!!! GOD…. in Mainstream Media!!!! People will see it and they WILL have questions. If they walk away with a yearning to explore a relationship with God….all is GOOD!!! GOD IS GOOD!!! TO ALL THE PASTORS OUT THERE…Don’t STEAL someone’s Blessing because you are hung up on the Theology! Trust God to sort things out.
absonjourney, I appreciate your comments. Unlike others who chose to rip and tear in their comments, Yours seemed to be genuine.
I believe that if God can speak through the mouth of an ass that he can surely speak through anyone…even a Christian author…even an unconventional allegorical book. I am not a Baby Christian…I do hear from God. Yes, the Holy Spirit did guide me to this book at a troubling time in my life.
Shortly before reading the book, my extended family suffered a horrible tragedy. A family member was babysitting the 3 year old child of another family member. This child was sickly and had some developmental and physical problems. My cousins husband was home alone with his 2 small children and the 3 year old, when the 3 year old collapsed. He later died in the hospital. Because his wife was not home and his children were too young to testify, this very young man was charged with murder.
Did he actually hurt this child? What about the child’s mother? Who was quoted saying, “He was screaming all night that his head hurt. I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw him in the bed and told him to shut up and go to sleep”. Did his mother harm him when she threw him into the bed? Could the headache have been the beginning signs of a severe injury that happened earlier and did not show up until that day? Could it possibly have been the child’s father who was diagnosed with severe depression and who, in his frustration, grabbed and bruised the child’s penis during a diaper changing? Could he have hurt the child again?
A 3 year old little boy was dead….a young father of 3 was going to prison. The entire family and extended family was divided and NO ONE had any answers. There were so many hurting, wounded people. A father who would not be able to watch his 3 children grow up. A mother who would raise her 3 children alone. Another father and mother who were grieving the loss of a son, and a little boy who would never see another Birthday! So much HURT..so much pain and anger……so much unforgiveness!
So, Yes! I do believe that the Holy Spirit did guide me to this book…for such a time as this.
The Book was extremely helpful in the Authors ability to portray forgiveness in action. Sometimes you have to get out of your own head and let the Holy Spirit minister to you. I wasn’t focused on the Theological aspect of the book. So, therefore I wasn’t hung up on the Theological differences. I wasn’t stuck in a Theological box. I was interested in it’s ability to allow me to tap into the POWER of FORGIVENESS. Right or Wrong…I am a better person today because I read the book.
There are a lot more hurting, wounded people out there who can and will benefit from the movie. While I understand the purpose of Theological study….I also appreciate practical application. Hurting, suffering, wounded people need to know that there is a loving Heavenly Father who cares. Most Pastors see the Theological differences….most readers and viewers will see a family saved through the power of forgiveness. I will not apologize for my perception of the Book! As long as God gets the Glory….we all win!
I am actually glad you are going to see the movie, I am. I think it will put it more in its proper perspective to see it on screen in a movie Paul Young is promoting and endorsing.
Debbie, yes I have read the book. I am very concerned because it seeks to give explanations for things–from the mouth of God himself–which while fascinating is very dangerous. If I wrote a book of theology and wrote it in the first person and claimed I was God speaking and gave my theories about how to solve all the big issues like freewill, eternal security, predestination, etc., readers might think I was on pretty thin ice. The Shack is a fictional story but it’s a story about a series of conversations in which God explains things to a hurting man. It is indeed presenting theological arguments–and putting them in the mouth of God himself. Some of the ways God is presented and the things he says don’t line up with the Scriptures very well, as I see it. I think this is something to be very concerned about.
I’ve never been a big movie goer, but also as a pastor never been one who sees a heresy or conspiracy behind every cartoon and movie that comes out. Because of the business of this time in my life, I usually catch movies edited for TV about 10 years after the fact (but do make a special effort to get to one once in awhile). I recently watched Million Dollar Baby because it was on TV and I had some spare time and needed a break. I thought it was a very well done movie that really drew you in, but also sent a troublesome message at the end.
While we can’t enter into a conversation specific to the movie or the book if we haven’t seen or read it, we should always be ready to enter into a conversation about God, and who He really is.
I read the Shack when it came out. I was also surrounded by the hysterical attacks on the book from some in the Christian community. I appreciated Young’s willingness to face a really hard situation and lean into his faith. I still do. As the years since the book have passed my reaction to the book is “meh”. There is no life, no power here. The Shack offers no enduring meaning or insight to the reader. Those who “sat up all night” to read the book have long since moved along to more meaningful, substantial discussions of our faith or they have gone looking for another quick fix. The Shack just didn’t hold anyone.
Good point of view Joel. I would post a wonderful, very lengthy, but wonderful post by Randy Alcorn on this issue that I think would address some of the comments that Debbie and Denise made, but alas links are not allowed. I only direct people to Randy’s website Eternal Perspective Ministries and find his article on the front landing page titled “The Shack: Biblical Discernment Is Key in Evaluating Any Book or Movie”. This book and movie is ripe with theological and biblical error and really is garbage, but as pastors, I think we may have to wind up seeing it and re-reading it so that we can speak clearly on it with precise knowledge of what the book argues and how both the book and movie present the Godhead.
Comments automatically go into moderation if they contain more than one link. This is to prevent spam. If you include only one link, it should post. If you include more than one and it is appropriate, I will approve the comment.
If you are speaking of Randy White, I would disagree with him. BTW I am Southern Baptist and would disagree with your conclusions. I can’t see how you can read the book and come to those conclusions. Either it was skimmed through or not read.
No, it’s Randy Alcorn
Randy Alcorn. Okay I too am a Southern Baptist I don’t know what that has to do with the discussion. I would challenge you to read his analysis here: http://www.epm.org/blog/2017/Feb/20/shack-movie-book-discernment
The author rejects that the Godhead has no hierarchy. He states that extra-biblical revelation from the Holy Spirit is on par with Scripture. The Son clearly submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the the Father and the Son. Scripture is clear on this. The author also holds to the ancient heresy of modalism.
I’ve read the book twice and both times came to these conclusions. This book can be damaging to a new Christian and warp their understanding of the Bible. This book can be very damaging to a non-believer who’s asking questions as well because it gives a non-Biblical view of the Trinity and also represents the Holy Spirit and God the Father as material beings. They are not. They are Spirit, both eternal and existing beyond space and time.
JamesR: I would disagree with you and reply that you can’t speak for all people. You would have no idea to be able to make that statement. It changed me profoundly. And I still remember the book fondly.
Not everything in the book is bad and I think the author is trying to help people deal with evil and suffering in a thoughtful way. But because of the direct portrayal of the Trinity and the questionable theology put in the voice of God, it is something I could not recommend. William Paul Young is seeking to communicate theology (an understanding of God) through this book and there are reasons to be concerned about what he is saying. The review by Randy Alcorn among others fairly expresses man of these concerns.
James Forbis: If you are speaking in terms of eternal submission. We would have a deep disagreement. I actually hate the teaching of eternal submission because it is not in scripture clearly.
This is a fiction novel. The Bible is the Word of God. He is also a living God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God. Obviously, we are not to be of this world but we are surrounded by untruths every day. Listen to the Holy Spirit whether you should attend any movie out there for that matter. I don’t think people are looking for the truth in this movie but if it gets them asking questions about the true God–you came to earth to shed His blood and paid for our sins then it can be positive. I haven’t read the book yet but I am beginning to read the book before I see the movie. I believe that God supernaturally heals us whether in this life or when we are healed in Heaven. I also believe that God comforts us in our pain by His Word. I believe God can touch us in many ways.
I know this is the thing to debate today (I have not read the book) but is it the most important debate needed?
Is there a greater heretical message being preached each week in many of our sister SBC churches? Churches preaching to tickle ears… Sermons with an empty gospel… Sermons not designed to equip the saints… Sermons which are culturally relevant but cross negligent…
Are not these things more important to stand together on and work together to see come to an end?
Isn’t there a great harvest ready to be gathered in the pews? Shouldn’t we a stand against such nonsense coming from pulpits rather than what is being put on a theater screen?
Getting ready to go to worship and enjoy my weekly church fellowship. Preaching from Eph. 4:11-16. Pray I do not mess it up. Yeah – It’s Friday, that’s when we do church together. Sunday is the first day of the week here. Off to Friday School.
Joey: I’m not disappointed. I just think if one rejects something it should be what is actually in the book.
Someone condemns a book, then instead of reading and thinking for oneself, another article is written condemning something not read or seen. But I’m not disappointed at all. I am simply stating my view of the book, and just because I am a woman, I am theologically trained. I am Southern Baptist for a reason as well. My parents were not nor were my husband’s so it is a matter of agreement and choice.
Jon, I like your comment…
I, too, have great concern for the lives that will be impacted by the upcoming movie, “The Shack.” I’ve read the book twice, first for mere recreation and then for academic pursuit. I’ll likely read it again as better to prepare myself with what will undoubtedly be praises from my lesser theologically trained church members.
My first encounter with The Shack was at my mother’s urging. She is not a theologian in the least. At times we don’t have a lot in common, so when she reads or watches something “right up my alley,” I usually indulge her. I’m glad I did. While I found the book an enjoyable read, it was fantasy. It doesn’t represent the God of the Bible. It indirectly, but blatantly, denies Trinity. I shared this with my mother who was greatly disappointed…BUT NOT IN THE BOOK! Like Debbie and Denise, she was more disappointed that I didn’t share her fascination with the book. She seemed disappointed that I would allow the Bible to ruin my ability to see a good story that could help people in harsh times. While I did convince her that the books depiction of God was way off, I still can’t make her see the dangers that lie therein.
My second reading of The Shack was a theological book review. Again, I tackled modelism, but this time I went into the depiction of Christ. Once again, that Jesus is not The Jesus of Scripture. He lacks substance on more than one level. His teachings are not inline with Biblical teachings (nor are God’s or the Holy Spirit’s from the book). It ultimately boils down to a heretical view, theologically speaking.
From some of the comments, I see the opinion is “it can help people in tough times.” My advice is to turn to actual Scripture, not theologically provocative rhetoric. If you’re looking to help struggling people, I suggest Psalms, Proverbs, Job or the Gospels. Any and all are better than The Shack.
While I plan to see the movie, I plan to do so by myself. I won’t take family or friends. I plan to see this from a purely research point, as Rev. Rainey is, in the hopes of being able to accurately minister to those members of my flock who might otherwise be fleeced! And to Bro. John Estes, we are the shepherds and we must protect the flock from all wolves, including theatrical heresy! This is why I saw the Russell Crowe “Noah” and the Christian Bale “Moses:” to prepare the flock from being fleeced!
Joey – I am glad you are protecting your flock, though that was not the jest of my comment. Since you brought it up… How many people in your flock saw Noah or Moses? Out of that number how many people came to you and you had an in depth theological discussion concerning the movies? How many do you think you will have come to you in the same way concerning The Shack?
“I’ll likely read it again as better to prepare myself with what will undoubtedly be praises from my lesser theologically trained church members.”
How wonderful that you are willing to deal with the misplaced praises from the lessers?
I hope I would never say something anywhere that I would not say in the pulpit? I am not ready to call my flock (or some of them) the lessers. Ephesians 4 tells me they are the saints and I am to equip them. If I called my flock theological lessers, they probably would tune me out. Rightly so.
BEING LIKE CHRIST…
IS NOT…
Being able to do all the things Jesus did… like He did.
IT IS…
Being able to do those things for which we are purposed… like He would.
Jon, 3 or 4 for each. Not a large number, but enough . Lessers in this sense is not meant as insulting, but the reality that some are no where near as theologically astute as others. Most are “babes in Christ.” A few are those who’ve never grown spiritually. At least one is the type to let things like “The Shack” serve as an extra biblical source of inspiration.
Back to your original point: there are many things we as Pastors have to tackle (from the pulpit, one on one, in meetings), but we cannot dismiss things like cultural references either! I have found one of the biggest roadblocks to a serious walk with Christ is “feelings.” “I feel” this about something. Denise’s comments are the perfect example.
“I was extremely impressed with the creative liberties that the author took in the writing of this book…this book allows readers to FEEL forgiveness…it has personified God as someone we can talk to and actually spend time with.”
She criticized Pastors for their concerns, but from her comments you see the trouble. Even after acknowledging the author’s creative liberties dealing with very sensitive, theological material, she ultimately navigates, based entirely on how it made her feel, to a theological conclusion about how The Shack can help you have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. The problem is the God she’s grown closer to is the God of The Shack, not the God of Heaven and earth.
Joey, you have absolutely no idea who I am or what my personal relationship is with The Father, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior!! My God is bigger than a Theological argument!!!
I criticized Pastors for their lack of Faith, not for their concerns. What trouble are my comments causing? You are not only miss reading what I posted; but, you are also putting words in my mouth that I did not speak.
God created us to be thinking, feeling, seeing, hearing, and breathing human beings. If you have a problem with feelings than I suggest you have a long talk with the creator. I sure hope that you are not a Father, or Pastor who negates the feelings of his children or his congregation!!! I never said that I based my liking the book purely on how it made me feel. Does that also mean that if I sit in your pew and listen to you preach and your sermon touches me and makes me feel inspired to act more Christ like or makes me feel like I should alter an aspect of my life, your preaching is off base because it tapped into my feelings?
“The problem is the God she’s grown closer to is the God of the Shack, not the God of Heaven and earth….Seriously???? What gives you the right to surmise?
You remind me of my cousin and her husband. They were both psychologists. While raising their children they were more caught up in the psychology of child rearing than in the discipline of child rearing. Their children grew up to be Hellians. The cause was wwaaaaay to much psychology and not enough common sense.
I am a practical application reader. I don’t apologize for that! Theology has a purpose…so does practical application. No one comes to the Father except through the Son. No one comes to the Son except the Holy Spirit woos them. First you have to get them in the church before you can teach them the precepts. All I ask is that you trust that God already knows the pros and cons of the book and the movie that took 10 years to come. Trust that there is a practical application here that can and will touch many lives. God is bigger than the Theological box that you have put him in!!!
Joey: To say, just turn to the scriptures for comfort is not to know the deep pain that some go through. And there is then no need for preachers, teachers or revival services. Just read the scripture and that is just not true.
No, we guide them through it. My point was, if you’re looking for material to help people in grief, why not use things that can help them truly grow closer to God, Scripture. On that basis, there is a need for preachers, teachers and revivals. Using something like The Shack might make them feel good, but ultimately it will not help them walk closer with God, namely because the god of The Shack in not Yahweh, the Lord of Heaven and earth. The Jesus of The Shack is not the Jesus of the Gospels. The Holy Spirit of The Shack is not the Holy Spirit who dwells in believers today.
The cousins from the family tragedy and the cousins that were psychologists were from two different families. I thought I needed to clarify.
Why do so many women seem to be the main advocates of this book? Not ALL women, but most of the fans or endorsers seem to be of the “weaker vessel”?
Adam: To refer to women as “the weaker vessel” is your usual garbage statement.
Um. Debbie. See Bible. Not an insult.
If you would read your Bible correctly. He is talking about wives not women in general and he’s speaking about honoring them not treating them as second class as you presumably would like it to say.
It says heirs, not inferiors. The misquoted version leaves out the entire second half of the verse. The reason husbands should treat their wives with understanding and honor.
Cindy,
That’s way off base. Of course Peter is talking about women in general. Yes, this particular Scripture refers to wives, but to follow your logic, women are equally yoked as men UNTIL their married, at which time they become weaker vessels. If this were truly the case, I’d urge women everywhere to never marry.
Perhaps Adam did use this as a “theological jab,” but his question has been overlooked by each of you: Why is it that WOMEN are the chief advocates of this book? Instead of attacking Adam’s choice of words, why not tackle his argument?
Tarheel: I would recommend that you read Adam’s entire comment. And no it is not biblical Tarheel. I should list for you the reasons why it is not true just from a practical side, but if I have to list them …well let’s just say I shouldn’t have to.
Adam G. from NC,
Biblical truth draws retaliation, doesn’t it? Kind of serves as the greatest example of what we’re debating here. To answer your question, I have found truth in the saying “Women think with their hearts.” Quite often that can be a good thing. Women can be some of the best ministers simply because they respond from the heart. However, feeling, as seen with responses to “The Shack,” can be a detriment.
Joey’s comment deserves a Theological Lesser trophy.
I guess you “felt’ you needed to make such a comment.
Someone owes the ladies here an apology.
It seems lately the Bible is pointed to at one’s convenience. Where was it used in other recent matters? It wasn’t.
If this is going to become a thread to put down women, we are not the ones sinning by reading the Shack. I for one will not tolerate the berating of women. I don’t condone it against men. But of course being a woman, I won’t condone it here either just because you disagree.
For some silly reason this too seems to be an area some people just want to be jerks instead of simply disagreeing. I am not going to hell for reading and enjoying immensely the Shack. Faith in Christ is the only way to heaven, and if you have not read the book or simply heard what it was, I am saying that you are wrong in your interpretation of the book. William Paul Young is a Christian who believes in Universalism as a “I wish it were so, I hope it is so” mentality. He believes the only way to heaven is belief in Jesus Christ and he does believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He just hopes that those after death also have another chance to believe in Christ.
That is not heresy. It’s a differing view.
And yes, thank you Jon.
Good comments Cindy.
/\
I didn’t say any of you ladies were “going to hell” for reading this theologically errant book (see: William Paul Young’s Universalism). Just wanted to know WHY they were it’s most ardent defenders…here and elsewhere.
And yes, I was taking a dig at our resident istorian feminist. I just wanted to hear her position defended in it’s normal tone. Sorry. I’m ready to hear the defense now.
***I don’t comment on here in like, 6-months and it’s already like old times!
Welcome back, troublemaker. 😉
Adam, that statement was sexist and derogatory.
What a self righteous comment. Are you ever weak or do you have it all together? This is a fiction novel, not the Word of God. I think the majority of Christians know this.
Here is a reason to avoid any and all consideration of The Shack!
1. God the father was crucified with Jesus.
2. God is limited by his love and therefore cannot practice justice.
3. God forgave all humanity whether they repent or not.
4. All hierarchical structures are evil.
5. God will never judge people for their sins.
6. The Godhead has no hierarchical ideal structure, just a circle of unity.
7. God submits to human wishes and choices.
8. Justice will never take place because of love.
9. There is no such thing as eternal torment or judgment in hell.
10. It doesn’t matter which way you get to God, Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys.
11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us.
12. Everyone will make it to heaven.
13. The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
Tom, each of those standing alone ought to be sufficent reason to avoid “the shack” and to discourage others from reading it – but compiled in a list like that there should be no question.
Thank you Tom.
Rejecting depictions of God that violate Scripture isn’t “putting God in a box” or “refusing to listen to the Holy Spirit.” Rejecting such pictures is an admission that God can’t be put in a box, because we have listened to the Spirit, who testifies to the truth of His written Word.
My comment was about that scripture that men are to treat women with respect and love and care and he was speaking about a husband and wife relationship. The person who commented in this post wasn’t to lift up women to me it was to look down on them for reading the book and having an opinion. Like I have said in my comments before this book is a Novel and not the Word of God. Do you listen to wordly music, watch wordly tv shows and read other wordly books. I believe the Holy Spirit in our life will lead us to what is truth and what is not. I don’t think we should be fearful. Fear is a Spirit in itself.
Thank you Jon. Men and Women both serve a great purpose to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We should Love one Another especially as Christians, this world is tough enough. Have a Blessed day.
Christian fiction is not necessarily bad ..
However, when one wants to truly understand who God is and his plan in the world – then the place to go for that is where he’s intentionally revealed himself to
Us – His word.
5 year olds nor the author of this book have any new revelation about God, who he is, or his work in the world… that’s already revealed to us in the word.
Tarheel: Have you ever experienced God, the Trinity, for yourself, in times of grief or in times of searching scripture? The Godhead is personal. They come to us in times of grief in ways that are beyond description. God is in the Bible, to be sure. But he is also in our lives. He touches us, He comforts us literally. And it’s amazing.
“Have you ever experienced God, the Trinity, for yourself, in times of grief or in times of searching scripture?”
Absolutely. The way to experience God is through his word. The Holy Spirit works through the word.
Here is the deal:
If the Shack “brings you closer to God” but the “god” described in the Shack is not the God of the bible – and its absolutely not – then it’s to a false, man designed false “god” to whom you are being drawn.
Of course Tarheel the book in question must be “Christian fiction.”
The god of “The Shack” is not the Christian one. So merely “religious fiction” would suffice.
Rob
One thing I noticed as I have read the comments here is that they have revealed a great need: theologically sound Christian fiction that can reach the emotional heart and the intellectual head simultaneously. Of course the characters need to be deeply realized people who are not caricatures or otherwise act in unrealistic ways . And the plots need to be realistic, entertaining and without plot holes.
The Shack took on a serious theological problem head on. In the end it offered an empty solution. But…its a challenge. If the men in the pulpit offer theological criticism about the faults of The Shack but lack the courage to engage big, difficult issues with the truth of the gospel in a way that is full of grace and full of truth, then they are the ones who are failing. Your people are not going to take comfort in your criticism of modalism when they don’t know how to think about the suffering of their loved ones or the effect of evil in their life.
That’s a really good point. When we don’t deal with these issues as the Body it’s very easy for someone to bring poor theology that attempts to answer those questions and “answer” them in ways that counter orthodoxy.
Yet another reason those who teach and preach should always seek to present the whole counsel of God and not just self help.
Good word JohnR.
I agree with you Denise. I don’t agree with Paul Young on everything.
I believe theology to be important, yet as Denise said and I’m going to put it in my words so hold on to your hats boys.
You are so busy being uptight about theology, no one has a chance to breath or discover things from your congregations. I am pleased to belong to a church that allows disagreement on such things and even listens while teaching from scripture. We are free to discover theology on our own.
You guys may not be discovering the best parts of God because you won’t breath or give room for anything different than what you have been taught. Seminaries are good as long as you realize that God is even bigger than that. We have no idea on this earth the full truths and we won’t until heaven, but God is also gracious to show himself personally to each and every Christian open to him doing so. And it takes scripture and really puts it in light. The Shack is just one way He is doing this.
I hope you do go “check” this movie out and try to dismantle it theologically, because my prayer is you will see it and come out of it with an experience that transcends explanation. That is what just reading the book did for me.
Now you can say I am a woman being misled and I will say that is a very foolish statement made by theological wheeling fools.
Debbie, I appreciate what you are saying and I reject the gender disrespect some of this conversation has engaged in. Here’s my problem with this book and movie. I agree we shouldn’t nitpick religious novels and films and we should focus on the good things that are conveyed. The issue with the Shack, for me, is that the distortion is about God himself: reimaging the Trinity and having God say things that are at least questionable. Let’s say someone reads the Shack (or sees the movie). They are really drawn to how God is portrayed and they resonate with the story powerfully. Then on Sunday they go to church and the pastor is preaching through the Book of Acts and his sermon is about Ananias and Sapphira and how they were struck dead for lying (Acts 5). The person might have the thought: I wish God was more like what I read in the Shack. A mature believer isn’t likely to be misled by a novel or a movie, but some believers might stumble. Does the Shack lead us to love and cherish the true God of the Bible better, or does it portray a more “user-friendly” God which leads people to have a harder time relating to the God who has actually revealed himself through Christ and the inspired Scriptures. This is my concern. Maybe it’s misplaced, but movies and books can have a powerful effect on the affections and when it comes to the very being of God himself, this is a serious matter.
Hi Steve,
I’m not sure I get your point totally because God the Holy Spirit doesn’t strike us dead when we lie today, not that He couldn’t because He is God. So I’m not quite understanding that part of your comment.
Good answer Cindy.
Steve: Cindy answered very close to how I would answer your point.
Steve: Ministers need to let go of their grip on people. Preach the Bible, but allow people freedom in this area. I think you would be surprised at the results.
Cindy, I’m grateful that God doesn’t usually bring judgment on us immediately (who of us would still be here?), but do you think he doesn’t sometimes still bring such judgment upon people? The Bible does say in Romans 1:18 that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.” This is present tense, not just a future reality. I think we need a greater awareness of the holiness of God, as well as his amazing mercy and love. Also consider what Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 11:30 about those who were taking the Lord’s Supper in a casual and carnal way. Some might argue that God never does that today, but what is your biblical basis for that assumption? I think we need to be very careful about whether the God we worship is the one of biblical truth or human imagination.
Debbie: I’m not sure exactly what you mean about pastors letting “go of their grip on people.” I don’t control my people or what they think. I try to preach what the Bible says and apply it to our lives as best I can. Part of my responsibility is to also warn the flock of dangerous wolves and the devil’s deceptions. If I’m honestly concerned about something with the potential of misleading them about the very nature of the God we worship, then I have to at least point out what could be misleading about such material. You can disagree with me and that’s fine, but I think the material represented by the Shack has some serious and significant problems that I think you are underestimating.
Steve: He will not zap you for the Shack. We are His children. The way to heaven is Jesus Christ. The Shack is not going to bring the wrath of God(which he does not have on his children) down on you. We are his children Steve. No, he does not bring down judgement for something like this.
BTW Thank you for the statement on women.
I think that you don’t think you control your people Steve. And I say this with no malice.
The Bible should always be read as a whole book, not broken up with a piece here and a piece there Steve, remembering as you read, the Bible points to Christ. Yes, God tells us some things about Himself, and He gives us instruction, but look at the passages of how God loves us, cares for us, understands us, etc.
We have freedoms, not being bound up in a bunch of theology. He is a personal God to each of us, and as Cindy and Denise have pointed out can’t be bound up in a box. I think you would be surprised the freedoms we have. The New Testament reveals to us more what God is to His children. Zapping us is not one of them. This is what I mean by letting go of your grip.
Unfortunately more ministers have a grip on their congregation than do not. Is that trusting God fully or understanding Him fully when one is afraid to let their people discover things for themselves?
Sometimes theology can blind you to God.
I also don’t think we should put God in a box. If He can reach Atheists I’m sure He can reach someone searching out who God is from a book they have read. Many people have grown up in churches not having a personal relationship with God and accepting Him later on. He is a loving God and He knows our heart if we are really searching to know God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit for His salvation by His blood He shed for us. I don’t have fear of this book.
Cindy,
That is one way to look at it.
Another way is to see what the Bible says: that no one seeks God (Romans 3) no not one, and that no one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. (John 6)
Feelings are important, Jesus wept did He not. But theology matters as well. Feelings can oscillate but right doctrine is the Rock on which we stand, for Jesus is the Word of God. The Good Book speaks of Him and thus Truth for He is the truth.
Having now read all the comments in this thread, along with the post (good post, BTW), I see that the atmosphere of the thread is at the perfect temperature to declare that the “use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise.”
Hahaha CB.
John 3:16: For God so Loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son that Whosoever Believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Also: 2 Peter 3:9.
The way I read your comment is that God picks and chooses who will be saved. I believe that He puts a desire in all of us to know Him but we can accept or reject salvation because we have free will. Other than writing a whole book here whenever we make comments we can’t fully explain ourselves or articulate our beliefs. I believe in 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
We are on a journey in life and if we pray, read His Word, love one another, share the Gospel, He will continue to teach us and we will grow. I don’t take any book to be the gospel truth except the Word of God and like I have said before The Shack is a novel. We are bombarded by lies and truth on a daily basis and We need to walk this earth by Faith in Jesus. We watch tv shows, listen to music, read books–we live. There won’t be perfection until Heaven. I won’t be making comments any more, but I hope for you all peace, love and joy and many blessings. Jesus loves us and He is Holy and Worthy to be praised.
Cindy,
My comment consists of what the Scripture says.:
No one seeks God, no, not one. and that no one comes to Jesus except drawn by God.
When anyone puts what they *think*is true because it sounds *good* to them over the Word of God, they are in essence sitting in judgment on God and on His Word instead of allowing the Word to guide their life and understandings.
So while you *think* life is one way, God is telling us something different. Yes, people reject the Gospel freely and in accordance to their will and their desires and understanding. And God tells us that those that come to Him are drawn.by Him to Himself.
That principle [that life can feel one way while God tells us something different] is why the ‘Shack’ is considered an inappropriate and possibly dangerous read by many because it teaches theology contrary to the Bible.
Debbie, I never said God will “zap” anyone for reading or watching the Shack! What I tried to say, however imperfectly, is that if someone is influenced to think of God as the one portrayed in the Shack, that person may have a hard time relating to the way God is actually revealed in the Bible (such as those occasions when he did send judgments on people like Ananias and Sapphira). I think the Shack portrays God more as Oprah might than as the Bible actually does. Some of you surely disagree with that assessment and I respect that. But what I’m asking is this: how does the God of the Shack compare with the revelation of God in the Bible. Yes, the vital emphasis on love and mercy are in the Shack abundantly, but how “God” explains things to Mack (theology!) does distort what Scripture teaches on some important matters. The Shack is intended to teach what Paul Young believes about God. It’s not just a novel; it’s propaganda in a very real sense. The most dangerous heresies aren’t the blatant denials of what Scripture says, but the smooth-sounding subtle deviations which seem harmless but which end up turning people far off course. You might consider my concern as alarmist, unfair, and “controlling.” That isn’t my intention, but I think some of you who are eager fans of the Shack may need to consider the possibility that a bit more discernment may be needed on this. If you decide, I’m off-base, you have as much right to your opinion as I do mine. But please note: Paul Young does have a theology he’s promoting with this book and it’s not above serious criticism.
I agree that “theology can blind us to God” and that we “shouldn’t put God in a box.” But the answer isn’t to forsake theology but to bring our theology to the Word of God, not simply to our feelings or experiences. In Acts 17:11, after Paul preached to the Jews in Berea, they compared what Paul was saying to the Scriptures. “Now the Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things (what Paul was preaching) were so.” We should have the same approach. That’s not putting God in a box but trusting his Word.
Trust God and His Word Steve and if you will look in that Bible, all 4 of Paul Shack’s personas in this book are God albeit in One Person. He is all 4 characters in this book, personality wise. He is very involved in our lives on a personal basis just like in this book. It’s in the very Bible that I read and study and you read and study.
In times of grief, in times of hard experiences, He comes to us personally, much like in this book.
Is He not God in three persons? Paul Young has 4 but for a reason. To me they were God’s personality wrapped in the 4 entities in this book.
Angels come to this earth in different forms all the time. They come to us personally. That too is in the Bible. Paul Young is extremely knowledgeable of the Bible.
Debbie,
How interesting. God’s personality wrapped up in 4 entities.
Easy to say. Harder to show. Comparing 4 entities to the Triune God.
Care to show how your belief in the truth of the book plays out?
Do people seek God? Yes.
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. -Deuteronomy 4:29
When You said, “Seek My face,” My heart said to You, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.” -Psalm 27:8
The humble shall see this and be glad; and you who seek God, your hearts shall live. -Psalm 69:32
Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. -Isaiah 55:6
Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and did not forsake the ordinance of their God. They ask of Me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching God. -Isaiah 58:2
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. -Lamentations 3:25
Seek the LORD, all you meek of the earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden In the day of the LORD’s anger. -Zephaniah 2:3
For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: “Seek Me and live. -Amos 5:4
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. -Hebrews 11:6
Some only present one side of the story.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
In each of the passages you referenced, the seeker is already a person of faith.
No one seeks God unless God draws them to Himself.
lets look at one:
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. -Hebrews 11:6
No one comes to God without faith. Faith always precedes godly choice. Faith always precedes any choice pleasing to God.
You haven’t presented a different side of the story.
Parsonmike,
Kind of arbitrary that you dismiss all the above verses by saying none of them refer to the lost. Of course they do.
People do seek God before they are saved.
In Acts 10 Cornelius sought God before he was saved.
Nicodemus sought Jesus (John 3).
The Rich Young Ruler sought Jesus (Matthew 19; Mark 10; Luke 18).
Isaiah 55 begins with, “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters.” Notice the word, everyone.
Then Isaiah 55:6
Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near.
Then Isaiah 55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
Sounds to me like everyone means everyone, and the wicked and unrighteous would be included in those who are to seek God.
Then there is Acts 17:26-27.
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us
God gave man a free will and under the conviction of the Holy Spirit many have sought God. Some accept Him, some reject Him.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Who sought God and wasn’t saved?
No one.
So WHY were they seeking God?
One reason is that they were being drawn by Him to Himself.
Now as to your examples.
First let us recall the verse in Hebrews:
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. -Hebrews 11:6
Cornelius was a believer, a god-fearer. Was Peter saved before Pentecost?
Acts, as you well know, depicted a transistor time where those who were believers in God had to come to faith in Jesus [that among other things].
Acts 10 tells us:
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God
Cornelius was a devout man in which this can also be translated: godly man. [See Acts 22:12 Ananias and 2nd Peter 2:9 where God knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation.
Cornelius also feared God. In this context, that means he revered God.
Third, God was pleased by Cornelius as shown by His acceptance.
Thus according to our verse in Hebrews, Cornelius was a man of faith, who believed in God.
Nicodemus and the rich young ruler did not believe Jesus was God. They sought Him as one would a teacher and as a man like themselves. They did not seek Jesus as God. Therefore these examples do not fit the argument.
Now in Isaiah 55 you focus on the word “everyone”. But the Word isn’t telling us everyone without distinction is it? No. It is saying everyone who thirsts. Thirsts for what we might ask?
The answer is everyone who thirsts for God and for righteousness. And again we ask, are they who thirst not being drawn by God to Himself? Of course they are. And we ask, how can they come to Him? What does the Scripture tell us:
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
They come based on faith. There is no godly action/choice that is not first preceded by or impelled by one’s faith. No faith no choice is pleasing to God. is coming to God godly? Yes it is. Therefore it is an act of faith. Which is a godly act done because you have faith.
Read Hebrews 11 my brother. By faith this, and by faith that.
After quitting Isaiah 55:7 you said: “Sounds to me like everyone means everyone, and the wicked and unrighteous would be included in those who are to seek God.”
Except you disregarded part of the Scripture to make that statement. Let me reword it for you to make it true the passage:
Sounds to me like everyone WHO THIRSTS means everyone WHO THIRSTS, and the wicked and unrighteous would be included in those who are to seek God. Of course all are to seek God. But the invitation here is to those who THIRST.
We sin but we should not. The wicked should seek God but they do not care to. UNTIL they THIRST for Him.
And why do they thirst for Him? Because God is drawing them to Himself. Not the Mormon god or the Muslim god or any of the false gods which men seek after all the time but the One True God. And how can they know WHO He is? For when He draws them they find no satisfaction for their thirst and hunger until it is met in the Gospel. Hence we are to preach the Gospel to all men everywhere that those who thirst and hunger for God may be filled.
Acts 17;26.
yes men SHOULD seek for God. But what have men done? Romans 1 tells us:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
What they should do is not what they AND we did. We all turned away from God, exchanging the truth for lies and false gods. But when God drew us to Himself, and brought us to hunger and thirst for righteousness, He sent proclaimers of the Gospel to meet our need so that we encounter Him in its truths.
Finally you said:
“God gave man a free will and under the conviction of the Holy Spirit many have sought God. Some accept Him, some reject Him.”
Well that is partly right. Man does have free will. But of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness we read:
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”
and of those who seek God we read:
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!”
But as noted, many seek for a god-but-not-the-Lord-God. They have chosen [by that free will] to exchange the truth of God for a lie. They have chosen to worship the creature instead of the Creator. And what are we told happens to them? “…they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…” AND, “…God gave them over…” EVEN as we read:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Are these people hungering and thirsting for God? Uh, NO1
Are they seeking Him? Uh, NO!
And we read about them in another place:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
That was you and I, right, at one time.
BUT not now! Something changed our lives, and the Scripture tells us as we read a bit further:
BUT God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Not: BUT we started seeking God and we decided to hunger and thirst for Him. Nope NADA. Not at all.
What does the Scripture say?
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
It says BUT God.
Did you freely come to God David?
Yes, because God drew you to Himself, by making you hunger and thirst for His righteousness, spoke to your hear teaching you the truth of Jesus, and lavished His love upon you.
See David, its not about free will. People freely have turned away from God and have freely exchanged the truth for the lie. Now they revel in sin and unrighteousness and are God haters. But you turned away from that life because of the rich grace and mercy God has given you even as He demonstrates His love for you in that Jesus has died for you and for your sins. And even as we stumble in sin, we are drawn again to God by the Gospel.
Parsonsmike.
And thus people can see the difference between Calvinists and those who are not.
Are you really saying a person has to be saved, before they can seek God?
I simply appeal to the Scripture listed above and that man has a real free will and can choose or reject salvation.
By the way, the Rich Young Ruler sought Jesus to ask about eternal life, yet rejected Jesus.
Matthew 19:16
Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
Mark 10:17
Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
Luke 18:18
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
But, we are not going to agree.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I am saying that according to the Scriptures those who seek God are those drawn by God and those who are saved by God. They are those who are taught by the Father and have learned from Him.
I never used the word, “saved”.
Now you are “simply appealing” that a man has real free will and can accept or reject salvation. The Scriptures tell us that a man accepts or rejects salvation, that is true. AND they tell us why he accepts or rejects.
Now everyone knows that people have free will. Every day we make choices to do this and not that. We choose which route to go to work, or even to go to work at all. When confronted by temptation, people choose to lie or tell the truth. And they make each and every free will choice based on their own wants and desires, aims and goals, feelings and understandings. Yes we all know that man has free will to choose a or b and we also know that people choose based on who they are, what they think, and what they desire.
Nothing I have said contradicts free will in any way.
Yes the young ruler sought Jesus about eternal life, but the young ruler did not Jesus was God in the flesh, he sought Jesus only as a good teacher. So, in his mind, he wasn’t seeking God when he sought Jesus. He was seeking a way to God. People seek eternal life all the time, but that is not the same as seeking God and His righteousness. And we know that the young ruler DID NOT WANT the righteousness of God and the life that comes with it [he walked away from that] but instead he wanted his own version of life. Her was not seeking the True God but rather an idol. So when he was told the real path, he did not believe it, blinded by his riches.
So did the young ruler have free will? Of course he did.
What he didn’t have was an understanding of truth and a desire to submit himself to what he was asked to do. Since it wasn’t what he wanted, he freely rejected it. That reminds me of a verse in 1st Corinthians 1:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Those that hear the Gospel [the word of the cross] and think it foolishness will OF COURSE reject it [freely by their own will]. neither can they, if they think the Gospel foolishness, embrace it FROM THEIR HEART. Thus as long as they think the Gospel foolishness, they can not embrace it in a salvific manner.
But not all reject the Gospel for as the Word tells us: “but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Who are those BEING saved? Why it is those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, who are being drawn by God, and taught by Him. It is these who consider the word of the cross, the Gospel, the power of God unto salvation [see Romans 1:16]. And thus they freely and willingly embrace the Gospel and The Lord.
Now let us finish the story of the rich young man by looking at what Jesus says next in Matthew 19:
And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Do not rich men have free will? Of course they do.
The problem has nothing to do with free will.
Who can be saved? the disciples ask!
God makes salvation happen, not people.
David, my brother, we may not agree here in this life, but thank you so much for bringing up the Scriptures that support my beliefs and giving me a chance to witness for the truth.
God Bless.
Parsonsmike,
So according to you, a man has to have his theology perfectly correct to “seek God”?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
I will continue to preach,
Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. -Isaiah 55:6
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. -Matthew 6:33
I believe these verses apply to the lost, and to the saved.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I think if you re-read what I have written above [or anything else I have ever written anywhere for that matter], you will not find me saying that or even coming close to saying that. In fact, i have no idea where you got that idea from.
So please don’t buy it nor repeat it.
You could, though, explain what brought you to that erroneous conclusion.
Now I do hope you will continue to preach the Word of God, both the verses you posted AS WELL as the rest of God’s Word. The call we give goes out unto ALL the world, and I have said nothing contrary to that.
David Brumbelow: Exactly.
Okay, one more time into the breach. Debbie, we’re not going to agree on the value of the Shack. You find much to appreciate in the way God relates to Mack. I respect that. I have tried to say that at the same time there are things that are said by “God” to Mack and the whole re-imaging of God that are troubling and questionable from a what I think the Bible teaches. You seem to respond that I shouldn’t be concerned about these things and shouldn’t let my theology limit God. I don’t believe seeking to base one’s theology solidly on biblical teaching is limiting God; I think it’s seeking to be as faithful to God as I can. But if I am wrong and the Shack is more biblical than what I think, then I’m willing to hear someone out on that. So far, I haven’t seen that well supported in reading many reviews (pro and con), as well as my own reading of the novel. I think you’re wrong about the danger of the Shack and you think I’m wrong. We could go on and on to no avail. Others will have to draw their own conclusions. But my main point remains the same: based on all the Bible says and shows about idolatry and false teaching, it is a dangerous thing to re-imagine God and to put words in God’s mouth that he didn’t say. I think the Shack does this and it troubles me that so many Christians seem to be fine with that.
Steve,
Every false teaching about God contains some truth or else it would be easily be recognized as a blatant lie. So when people say they get truth from the Shack, it is truth that they can and should get from the Bible. But when they get the truth from the Shack it is also mixed with error making the truth they get tainted and impure and that makes it a lie.
I doubt you will find any, NOT ONE, of the Shack’s defenders actually show how the book gives them truth without error. Jesus is the only true image of God. His Word shows Him to us. Each other image of God is a false Christ. Only the Word of God is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. [Hebrews 1]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. [John 1]
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1]
If it is not in the Bible, God is not telling it to us. The Spirit witnesses to the Word both the written and the Incarnate.
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
[John 16]
To speak of God but not of or from the Word, is to speak of an idol, a false god, a made up god.
Mike, I don’t disagree with you. Thanks!
Steve: You know I went to a church once that had brochures on why Bill Gaither music is heresy. I dismissed it, while wondering why someone would disregard Gaither. I put the Shack in that same category of perspective. God is all the things that these 4 entities in the book portray and it’s wrong to believe that God is going to zap someone now or in the future, which is the meaning of the word danger, it’s simply not true.
It’s not dangerous. You may not agree with the theology but it’s not dangerous. Danger and heresy seem to be words used in controlling a people. This book was given to our family through a wonderful friend that we do business with as well as friendship, at a time when our family was going through incredible grief. This person is not from my church, but I read and experienced great comfort and healing from this book before I knew who Paul Young was. There are many truths in this book as I explained
I know Wade Burleson is my minister and after 21 years I am biased but his is the most balanced article I have read with no hysterics. Wade became good friends with Paul Young, who spoke in our church for 2 days the year “The Shack” came out, and was so wonderful and gracious to each of us who spoke with him. His love for Christ and people was so evident . Reading Wade’s article, I think you would be surprised at the information in there. I hope he does not mind me posting the link here.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2017/02/the-shack-and-universal-reconciliation.html
It also shows the kind of church I belong to where freedom is given, which is a joy in a church, while preaching Biblical truths. Freedom for a congregation is priceless. That is my main message. I think calling the Shack “heresy” and “dangerous” goes beyond even what the Bible teaches, which is that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…..” John 3. Period. This is where God’s wrath was satisfied and God’s deep love is shown.
Mike: Look in scripture the answers to the questions you ask me are there. I could give you the passages, but I am lazy and tired. Long week for me this week. My apologies for that. But the beauty of God and his care of His children is in there.
My message is give people freedom ministers. Let go. Don’t hold on so tight. I think Cindy and Denise’s responses were quite wonderful. And powerful.
Debbie,
It seems you are saying that God is not a Theological SBC Fundementalist.
What are we going to do?
I’m just glad He is not a Calvinist… or is He?
Got to go. Helping my wife iron and do dishes. I will repent when I’m done.
Yes Jon that is exactly what I am saying. Thanks. You said it better than I could have.
Debbie, thank you for your comment about Paul Young and your church. It helps make clear where you are coming from. In response to your recent comments: I am grateful for God’s incredible grace and patience. To the extent the Shack helps people grasp this I am glad. But God also calls us to be wise about deceptions and false teaching which can bring harm into our lives in many ways. And yes, sometimes God expresses his righteous judgment against false teachers and brings severe chastisement against his children (to prevent worse harm). We won’t agree about the Shack. But I do recommend your consideration of the following biblical passages as another thing to keep in mind (along with John 3:16): 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; Hebrews 12:5-11; Jude 3-10 (and the rest of the book); and Revelation 2:20-23).
Correction: There were 3 entities not 4. I was referring to “Papa” who also had another name.
“We stopped carrying ‘The Shack’ a few years ago,” LifeWay Director of Communications Carol Pipes emailed BP, “because although it is a work of fiction, the theology presented as integral to the story clearly conflicts with the Bible on many issues, especially in regards to the character and nature of The Trinity.”
http://www.bpnews.net/48411/the-shack-film-stirs-debate-as-did-preceding-book
David R. Brumbelow
Good for Lifeway.
This is Tuesday, the Shack opens Friday.
Of interest, there are still no reviews [ rottentomatoes dot com ] which sometimes indicates the movie is so problematic that no reviews will be allowed to “pan” it before it is released. However, because it is a “Christian” movie maybe they’re just concerned non-Christians will give it a poor review.
Variety’s take: and I think they actually got it right:
And that’s just what “The Shack” is: a close encounter with God that’s like an instruction manual for those who prefer their faith mixed with sentimental teardrops. There’s an image of conservative Christianity as living on the opposite shore from Freudian therapy, but “The Shack” demonstrates how the two have merged. Mack must take a journey into the past to heal his demons, and to forgive the original sinner: his father. And he does it with the support of his new trio of counselor peeps: Jesus, the Messiah-as-mensch who teaches him how to walk on water (the movie’s one token supernatural touch); Sarayu, the Holy Ghost, played by the Japanese actress and model Sumira, who seems to be on hand mostly to round out the ethnicity of the cast; and Spencer’s Papa/God, who’s so jolly and benign that she makes the embrace of faith seem like sunshine and lollipops. The movie’s message is, “Have no fear! God truly is right here with you.” All that’s missing is a weekend spa treatment.
“The Shack” has a real chance to connect commercially, because even though its drama is mushy, at heart it’s a bit of a theme-park ride: the movie in which you get to know what it’s like to hang out with God and make friends with Jesus. In life, religion isn’t nearly so reassuring. It’s daunting, and our culture is starved for films that portray religious feeling in a way that’s both reverent and truthful. “The Shack” isn’t one of them; it reduces faith to a kind of spiritual comfort food. But thanks, in part, to movies like this one, maybe that’s what faith is on its way to becoming.