Did anyone read The Shack?

Lucy but Taller said:
I found it heretical because they made a woman God,and other things.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK. We discussed that before -- that, as Jesus said, God is spirit, and in the book He appeared as a woman and later as a man. To me that's not heretical, just fanciful. I mean, He appeared as a burning bush in the Old Testament, I guess He could appear as anthing He wants. But yah, a lot of people are bothered by that. I wasn't so much.
 
I read this book a while ago, and I don't remember the details of it, although I do remember being bothered by God being represented by a woman. I don't necessarily think that's heretical, and in truth I couldn't tell you exactly why I was bothered by it. But I think I can answer your question, Darth Sparhawk. As a novel, the book is okay, not great. It is more about the message, and definitely gets into a lot of "boring" theological stuff near the end. But some people have found it to be quite eye-opening, so who knows? Perhaps the negative aspects of it stuck out to me more because I've heard a lot of its main points before...it wasn't mind-blowing for me.
 
I agree with SW. To me the writing is mediocre and the message was merely that sometimes bad things happen to good people, and we can't know why, but there is a reason. It was like Leo Buscaglia goes Christian and writes a novel, poorly.

But I also agree with SW that the book has been a huge comfort to a lot of people, so who am I to throw stones?
 
Many things are heretical, actually. For one, it focuses on 'spiritual' and 'mystical' experiences, rather than truth.

Another, the unsaved who reject Christ will be sentenced to hell. The Shack completely ignores this.

Making God a black woman was completely pointless. Young is right that God isn't an old man with a white beard, but he isn't a woman either. God is not limited to being male or female: we were made in his image, not the other way around. However, the Bible says God is our father, not our mother. God made men with authority over women, so it's only natural to see God as our Father, with complete authority over everything.

Young completely mangles the Biblical Trinity, and attempts to put it into terms humans can understand. Mutual submission is the most dangerous concept that comes out of this. Young says that children and parents, husbands and wives, even God and man should be in submission to each other. He says that without submission there is not love. This is not true. God does not submit to us. Never in the Bible is that indicated. Husbands should not submit to their wives, but they should treat them lovingly. Parents should not submit to their children; the parents know better what is good for the children.

There is quite a bit more that I find strange about the book, like the fact that some of the characters are named after Hindu gods. But I think that is enough to get you thinking...as I said, I don't want to get into another fight. All I want to do is make it known that The Shack is a dangerous book that shouldn't be 'studied' like many people have already done.

*Some parts of this post were original worded by a friend of mine, therefore, credit is due :)*
 
I thought Young did as well as he could to explain the Trinity but the idea is a mystery, so he was bound to fail.

As for ignoring the idea that everyone without Christ is doomed for hell, I don't think that idea automatically has to be included in every book for the book to be not-heretical. I don't remember that idea being included in every single one of CSL's apologetics, yet I know they weren't heretical.

As I say, the whole thing of one of the God characters appearing as a woman didn't bother me that much. If God can appear as a cloud or a pillar of fire or three guys outside Abraham's tent, I guess He could appear as a woman if He wanted to.

The submission thing was really a muddle and I didn't understand what the author was trying to say. I thought he was really reaching there, and the preachy parts of the book were boring, anyway. But as a case in point, the Scripture never says a husband shouldn't submit to a wife. The passage from Ephesians in context says:
Ephesians 5:19-30 said:
Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body.
Click to expand...
The very first command about submitting is for everyone to submit to one another in the Lord. So, yah, sometimes a man submit to the wishes of his wife, Pretty often, I would say.
 
Back
Top