Posted on 01/26/2009 6:16:44 AM PST by Terriergal
2 Tim. 4:3-4. That time has come.
What heresies are contained in the book?
What heresies?
It was an OK book. I can see why people would embrace its spirituality. I can see why fundamental Christians (of which, I am one) would be repelled at some of its concepts. It contains both things, and so, both views have some merit.
The question is this: is the reader spiritually deep enough to tell the difference? That’s a big question.
For example, nothing in the book changed any fundamental - or even minor for that matter - aspect of my beliefs. I know that which I believe and know it better than one contemporary book can assail.
I think on balance, the book is a plus - at least for me. It’s kind of like Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. As a fundamental Christian, can I absorb the anti-socialist message of Objectivism displayed in Atlas without falling into its atheism trap? Yes. I enjoyed Atlas even as I was confident in my ability to sort out from it what MY beliefs are.
Of course, I also read (and enjoyed) Rice’s “Memnoch the Devil”. So, I’m secure in beliefs in literature that challenge MY beliefs - and even find it interesting to read challenging viewpoints
Now, is the book dangerous for somebody new to his/her faith? Quite possibly. However, the book is on the market, so it is what it is. Should it be censored? Heavens NO! Anybody interested enough in God to read “The Shack” should be interested enough to explores some more.
Besides, I think Acts 17 sums up my ultimate belief about our relationship with God: we should seek Him and reach out to Him, though He is not far from us. I have confidence in God’s ability to take someone interested enough to reach out to Him enough to read such a book to find the way to put that person’s hands into His.
It’s a novel, not a theology book. I read all the skepticism, then I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn’t read it as a theology book, I read it as a novel, and I don’t base my theology on novels, so I have no problem with it.
Before we read anything I think, especially something of a theological nature, we should investigate the view of Christ and Christianity the author possesses. What is William P. Young's view of hell, for instance? Does he believe in it or not?
We do the same thing with the main stream media when they report/fail to report the news, don't we? Why should we do any less with something far more important?
Sarayu, for instance, who is supposed to be the Holy Spirit's character. What does that name mean, where does it come from? Does it have an origin?
BAD THEOLOGY ALERT!
Sarayu is a river that flows into the Ganges, supposed by some to have been the river of life in Eden. The name means “wind.” It is given as a person’s name in Indian culture.
**“Sadly, though, there is much bad mixed in with the good,” he concluded.**
Glad to see this. Someone had recommended that I read it.
I was looking for a book to read at Walmart the other nite. They had a huge display for the shack, but I got Confessions of a Shopaholic instead-it was cheaper.
It sounds like from the Shack Synopsis on FR that I chose the best book for some light, enertaining reading.
some great reviews
Tim Challies
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php
Revised and Updated review by berean watchman
http://www.bereanwatchmen.com/j.r.hall/the-shack-a-review.html
Michael Yousef “The Shack Uncovered”
http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sto_TheShack_Uncovered
So was she saying your theology was all screwed up? Like the Shack will help that.
Tell that to the author:
http://www.bereanwatchmen.com/j.r.hall/the-shack-a-review.html
Young says he wrote the book at his wife's prodding, to explain his 11-year journey of healing with God to their six children. The "shack" in Young's story represents deep personal wounds, both suffered and inflicted. The book is spiritual autobiography (in one web interview, Young says Mack is "basically me") cast in an alternative world, an imaginative attempt to condense 11 years into a weekend of conversations. These are words offered by a 53-year-old father to his children, a fictionalized tale of his relationship with God mended in deep darkness.1It is because of statements like these that many people have said that we should not look into The Shack's theology; as a fictional autobiography, it is not meant to be a book teaching us about the things of God... or is it?
We should take careful note here that Mr. Young has at no time rebuked anyone for using his 'fictional' book to teach new spiritual truths. Even though he might have originally stated that the book was not to be taken as theology, he has since recanted thanks (I'm sure) to its unprecedented success in Christendom.
“I absolutely am convinced that this is a God-thing that God is the One stirring this all up, challenging us to rethink and entertain growing deeper in a relationship with Him rather than pursuing our independence,” 2
My friends, this book is indeed about theology and has impacted people as such.
Footnotes:
1. Derek R. Keefe, Reading in Good Faith, Chrstianity Today,
2. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081027/-the-shack-author-insists-bestseller-is-a-god-thing.htm
a post I made above has three good reviews listed which talk about the thirteen heresies in the shack (some reviews have 14 heresies depending who you talk to).
I still haven’t seen a definitive *heresy* really discussed from the book....unlike that which can easily be found in the Golden Compass, the Divinci Code, etc...
Interesting to read here as well: http://lifestream.org/blog/2008/03/04/is-the-shack-heresy
I wonder if any Catholics have reviewed it yet?
I’ve read all of that and yet there seems to be a lack of substantiation and some misinformation about what constitutes “heresy.” Although I would be EXTREMELY careful of anyone who attempts to overlap who God is with some sort of Gnostic goddess, I am not sure this is what has happened here. I would have to read the book myself and talk to others (with sound theological background)a bit more.
There were definitely some things that I didn’t find “doctrinally” sound, but hey, I can read theology books by renowned Christian authors and not agree with all their positions on Scripture. That doesn’t mean I throw out the good because of the parts I disagree on.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and have several friends, who like me thought they’d have issues with the book, but didn’t. I will say that those who have had “great sadness” seem to find it more meaningful than those who have not. A couple of my friends have lost children, another had a brain tumor and disability after it’s removal...these people seem to be most affected by the book. I think it’s because it does deal with hardships in life, and sovereignty issues. And in those areas, I found the book spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.