This weekend Jeremy was lucky enough to see our good friends, the Lickel's. During their time together, Andy mentioned the novel entitled The Shack. While we had not heard of it previously, we did some research and discovered that this book is quite controversial. It is becoming a top seller and is quickly infiltrating our culture. While trying to sleep last night, I randomly thought of some questions that I would love to discuss with you!
First, here is the summary the author provides of the book:
Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.
Against his better judgment he arrives as the shack on a wintry afternoon and walk back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever.
In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant The Shack wrestles with the timeless question, Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain? The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You'll want everyone you know to read this book.
Have you heard of this book? If so, do you think it is a book beneficial to readers or not?
Is it important for us as Christians to research and read the book in order to engage in the culture?
Is it necessary to read the book in its entirety in order to discuss its inaccuracies or can we trust biblical leaders to do this for us?
Do you plan on reading this book? Why or why not?
8 comments:
Challies summary and review are good. Though he is not Reformed I do think he probably holds to an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Here's my thought. It doesn't appear that this book teaches any less heresy then most evangelical Sunday school classes. When I was growing up the Trinity was always explained in the "Water, ice, steam" analogy, or the egg analogy. The problem is, both of those are heretical and necessarily lead to Modalism. While I don't know that I would say The Shack is heretical, it is clearly a misguided man who is helping dumb down modern Christianity. It also demonstrates the complete lack of discernment that so many people in the Church have.
Will I read the book? Yes, I am buying it today.
Is it a book beneficial to readers? Probably not.
Is it necessary to read the book to discuss it? Not at all.
Is it important to read it to engage in culture? Nope, we all have a common heritage, we were all born sons and daughters of Adam. I don't know how much more of a relation we need.
Per your request, my thoughts...
First, let me say, I'm surprised this is just now coming up amongst our circle of blogger friends, considering all the attention and buzz surrounding the book. I hope lots of people respond to your post. Anyway, I think I'll answer your questions in reverse order.
1. Do you plan on reading this book? No, I don't plan on reading it...anytime soon, at least. Too busy with other things.
2.Is it necessary to read the book in its entirety...can we trust biblical leaders to do this for us? I don't think it's at all necessary to have read the book in order to discuss it. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discuss something one hasn't read. It'll be a short discussion! Ha. I think it's crazy to trust biblical leaders to read it and "report back". Not because our leaders aren't trustworthy or insightful. But because I think it's lazy and elementary to allow someone else to do our critical thinking for us. The opinions of our leaders count and should be heard. But to take a strong stand for or against a book one hasn't read just becasue so-and-so said such-and-such seems...unfitting, I guess would be the polite way to put it.
3. Is it important for Christians to read the book in order to engage the culture? Eh. No, I don't think so. I mean,I suppose if we want to have something to say about the latest hot topic, then yeah. But things come and go, and there are probably lots of other books that are equally or more important to read if one is interested in engaging the culture.
4. Well, I have obviously heard of the book, and I've run into lots of comments about it around the blogosphere. As to whether or not it's beneficial, I cannot say because I have not read it! :)
I'll end with this. The one thing that really surprised me about all of this hoopla was how harshly the book was being criticized for its theological unorthodoxy. My immediate reaction was, "Wait. But this is creative writing." To my knowledge, this is a fiction book. It seems out of place to judge a creative work of fiction based on its theological accuracy, for I have a hunch that transmitting doctrinal truth was not the aim this writing at all. Perhaps it should be approached more like art--appreciated for what it is and the the thoughts it stimulates--and not like a Bible resource, critiqued for Biblical accuracy. I suppose it would be a bit like someone taking my poetry and claiming I'm a heretic because of the bizarre theological questions I have posed from time to time.
But...I haven't read the book, so maybe nothing I've said above really counts for anything at all. :)
Dana,
Interesting thought on the creative expression book. I must say, I'm only 100 pages into it, but whether or not he intended to, he is conveying theological truths. He is hitting at the weakness of the human heart and trying to reveal stuff about God. Whether he meant to or not doctrines such as the inspiration and revelation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, human ability and so forth are all presented in this book. And from an orthodox position, all are under attack. Again, he may not have intended this, but with a book like this it is hard to escape the theological emphasis.
Grace
You each differ in your thoughts regarding if it is necessary to read the book in order to discuss it or even to take a stance...
Could you expound?
Also, Kyle, what are your thoughts about trusting biblical leaders to read it "for" us...
I appreciate you two for offering your thoughts! Continue on...:)
I actually don't think we differ that much on that point. I agree it's not necessary to read it in order to discuss it. I just think it' a silly thing to do. It would be like someone who has never ever listened to jazz wanting to discuss jazz music with me and critique it. I mean, we could do it, but it would it be kind of a crazy conversation . And our discussion would be way better if the person listened to some jazz first. :)
I didn't see much of a disagreement between Dana and I, so I'm not sure what to discuss. Her jazz music example is great.
I think we have to trust our church leaders on what is good and what is not. That's why, in part they are there and hopefully they exercise a little more discernment than the lay person.
sorry. I read it fast this morning. Now that I have read both of your responses, I have a better understanding and can see your perspectives are not so diverging.
Well I finished the book this evening. It's like a bad mix of the Pilgrim's Progress, The Great Divorce, and A Christmas Carol (and falls short of these classics). I must give credit where credit is due, it's an interesting enough read. Young is a decent author with a lot of "poetic" description.
Unfortunately all of that does not make up for his massive theological errors. I know some reason that this isn't a theological treatise, and it's not, but it presents theology whether he intended it to or not. He does make statements about the Triune God, and therefore, the statements he makes should be scrutinized. Young's conception of ontological and economical Trinity seems downright horrible. I don't know that I would accuse him of heresy, because I think heresy requires more than saying something errant. But his presentation of the Trinity does fly in the face of the orthodox teachings of Christendom. He also seems, at times, to be quite Kantian in his thought. The way he portrays the characteristics and attributes of God is awful. I mean really, do we really have Biblical evidence that God, in interacting with himself is sarcastic? That got on my nerves. His views of the hypostatic union also seem quite divergent from Scriptural support. He errs in his presentation of the meaning of the atonement, and almost leaves you with a universalist flavor. He continually talks about "relationship" and "love" and yet I feel he never did justice to either topic, or even presented them in a necessarily Biblical way. His understanding of the human condition seems wishy washy; or at least a lot like Billy Graham's (God takes 99 steps and asks you to take 1). Once in a while he makes a point that you can agree with, but in the next breath he seems to completely go the other direction. One of the more irritating things was his complete undermining of ecclesiology. It would also be interesting to see where he falls on revelation and inspiration, he seems at times to equate "experience" with the authority that Scripture offers, as if Scripture is incapable of really making us understand. I wonder also, if you pushed him, how he would view the eschaton and final judgment.
Like I said, whether he intended to or not he really presented a comprehensive system of theology. I can understand why this book is so popular among so many evangelicals. It is the "feel good" fuzzy teddy bear God that he portrays. But I think Christians, if they read this, must do it with the utmost discernment because it teaches some very dangerous things.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Grace.
Post a Comment