Anyone here read The Shack?

[Sue G in PA]

What did you think? It was recommended to me and I started reading it last night. I was hooked. I was warned that the theology of the book wasn't all 100% accurate but that if you didn't go too deep w/ the theology that the book was really amazing. I'm finding that to be true. Anyone else read it and like it or hate it?

[ereks mom]

My mom has read it and recommended it to me. She is a VERY dedicated, conservative Christian, and while she agrees that the theology is not particularly sound, The Shack is not meant to be a theological work. Instead, the theme of the book that even though we go through difficult times, God has compassion and love for us.

[Hillary in KS]

I've not read it. I've chosen not to read it *because* of the theological discrepancies. Why read a book that will portray God in a way that doesn't line up with Scripture? How is that helpful?

[Sue G in PA]

I've not read it. I've chosen not to read it *because* of the theological discrepancies. Why read a book that will portray God in a way that doesn't line up with Scripture? How is that helpful?

 

Well, I agree and disagree. :) I've read the first 7 chapters so far. And, while I agree that if you focus squarely on the theology of it and not the message, you can get off track. But, the message is clear...God loves you...always. I'm choosing to focus on that message b/c it is speaking to me right now. In that sense, it is helpful to me right now. The prev. poster was correct that it wasn't written to be a theological discussion of who God is. So, I do agree that if you read too deeply you will get bogged down with the theological errors and not find the book helpful at all. In fact, I initially felt exactly as you do and chose NOT to read it b/c it was not theologically sound. But, I gave in and am glad I did. I'd recommend it. The person who recommended it to me is a very strong Christian who knows the Word and wouldn't recommend a book that would lead someone astray if you KWIM.

[Hillary in KS]

But why *purposefully* read a book with theological errors in it?

 

Could you not get the "God loves you" message anywhere else? Is the *end* ("well, I really felt loved") worth the means ("Well, yeah, this was wrong, and this wasn't accurate, and that presents a false view of God.")?

[Free Indeed]

Read it, and did not like it. The story gets odd, and the theological stuff is WAY off. I just did not care for it at all.

[LBC]

I read the book, and I really appreciated it. I think there is value in having our theology challenged. History shows that the church, as an institution, has not always been correct in its teachings. It's easy to get into a rut in our beliefs, and often refreshing to step outside of our safe little box and get a new perspective. Yes, people can be led into doctrinal error, but I don't think that is always the case. This is a work of fiction, not a theological text. If you are mature in your faith, I don't think a different perspective will do any spiritual harm. I have read quite a few books that many Christians would frown upon, and if anything, they have strengthened my faith, not harmed it.

 

I once heard a comment that some Christians are so narrow minded that they can see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time. I really don't want to fall into that category. :001_smile: A good book with an alternate point of view is refreshing.

 

That said, the Bible clearly teaches that something that is "clean" for some, may not be okay for another (pasting Romans 14 below), so it's important to use your own judgment about what you read:

 

Romans 14

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;

for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."

So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

 

Lori

Edited January 11, 2009 by LBC

[Heather in Neverland]

I read it and I loved it and I am a very conservative Christian. Especially if you have suffered loss in your life and ever felt far from God during those times...you will be blessed by it. It is not something I would give to a new believer. I think you should be firmly grounded in biblical theology before reading it. If you are, you can look past the differences and see the beauty in the metaphor...and it truly is beautiful.

 

If you fear that your theology might be "shaken to the core" by reading something like this, then you are safer not to read it. But if you feel strong in your beliefs then you might want to read it before writing it off as pointless. That's what I did with "The DaVinci Code"...I read it for the sole purpose of being able to refute it.

[Melissa in CA]

I've not read it. I've chosen not to read it *because* of the theological discrepancies. Why read a book that will portray God in a way that doesn't line up with Scripture? How is that helpful?

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Melissa in CA]

But why *purposefully* read a book with theological errors in it?

 

Could you not get the "God loves you" message anywhere else? Is the *end* ("well, I really felt loved") worth the means ("Well, yeah, this was wrong, and this wasn't accurate, and that presents a false view of God.")?

 

:iagree:..again! :D:lol:

[*********]

I've not read it. I've chosen not to read it *because* of the theological discrepancies. Why read a book that will portray God in a way that doesn't line up with Scripture? How is that helpful?

 

:iagree:

[TXMomof4]

I read it and I did enjoy it, BUT I have a huge problem with these types of books being mass marketed to everyone. The same thing is happening with this as did with the Prayer of Jabez. Unless you are a firmly grounded, in the Scripture daily Christian, these types of books present a picture that is not accurate and actually do lead even good Christians astray. Taking bits and pieces of God and using that to present an entire picture is dangerous and misleading.

That being said, taking it *just* as a story, it is an enjoyable read.

[newlifemom]

Can't make myself read it. The storyline has his daughter being abducted/murdered and who knows what else. Forget the theological stuff, having lost so many(granted they were miscarriages) I just don't think I am emotionally able to read about a little girl being murdered.

[Melissa in CA]

I have a problem with reading these types of books. NOT because I am a new Christian or not strong enough in my faith to withstand something challenging it (I've known the Lord for 35 years). But because if offends me when God is portrayed wrongly! If I have to weed through unbiblical unsound doctrine just to "get" something for myself, then something is seriously wrong with my relationship with Him. I prefer to honor & know God by meditating on who He truly is according to His word to us.

 

Long story short...I refuse to sludge through unsound doctrine for an emotional Godlovesme fix. :tongue_smilie: Sorry. That is my opinion, no offense intended to those who feel otherwise. :)

 

There have been some very long and controversial threads about this book in the past several months. If you do a search here and possibly the high school board, you will find them and some very good posts for and against it.

[Twinmom]

Conservative Christian here, and I read it and loved it. It is a work of fiction and was meant to be taken as such. The overall depiction of God is loving, involved in our lives and is accurate enough for a work of fiction, IMO. If I were looking for a theological discussion and pure theological accuracy, I'd have picked up a text written by a theologian rather than an author of fiction. As it is, I found the book both challenging and encouraging, as well as a good read. I've recommended it to friends who are suffering and they've felt the same.

[*********]

I have a problem with reading these types of books. NOT because I am a new Christian or not strong enough in my faith to withstand something challenging it (I've known the Lord for 35 years). But because if offends me when God is portrayed wrongly! If I have to weed through unbiblical unsound doctrine just to "get" something for myself, then something is seriously wrong with my relationship with Him. I prefer to honor & know God by meditating on who He truly is according to His word to us.

 

Long story short...I refuse to sludge through unsound doctrine for an emotional Godlovesme fix. :tongue_smilie: Sorry. That is my opinion, no offense intended to those who feel otherwise. :)

 

There have been some very long and controversial threads about this book in the past several months. If you do a search here and possibly the high school board, you will find them and some very good posts for and against it.

 

Wow, great post. I wholeheartedly agree.

[laughing lioness]

Loved it. Blogged about it here. http://goldengrasses.blogspot.com/2008/12/shack.html

[OnTheBrink]

I read the book, and I really appreciated it. I think there is value in having our theology challenged. History shows that the church, as an institution, has not always been correct in its teachings. It's easy to get into a rut in our beliefs, and often refreshing to step outside of our safe little box and get a new perspective. Yes, people can be led into doctrinal error, but I don't think that is always the case. This is a work of fiction, not a theological text. If you are mature in your faith, I don't think a different perspective will do any spiritual harm. I have ready quite a few books that many Christians would frown upon, and if anything, they have strengthened my faith, not harmed it.

 

I once heard a comment that some Christians are so narrow minded that they can see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time. I really don't want to fall into that category. :001_smile: A good book with an alternate point of view is refreshing.

 

That said, the Bible clearly teaches that something that is "clean" for some, may not be okay for another (pasting Romans 14 below), so it's important to use your own judgment about what you read:

 

Romans 14

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;

for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."

So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

 

Lori

 

With all due respect, Romans 14 isn't about reading false doctrine and making it ok.

 

2 Timothy 4:2-4

2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

 

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

 

4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

 

Matthew 7:13-15

 

13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

 

14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

[LBC]

With all due respect, Romans 14 isn't about reading false doctrine and making it OK.

 

 

 

I don't think reading a novel is the same as reading false doctrine and making it OK. My children read myths and legends in their history studies. I certainly wouldn't allow that if I thought it would lead to false doctrine.

 

The spirit of Romans 14, imo, is that what is OK for some is not OK for others: "...Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

 

I did not post this passage to support reading The Shack. I posted it to say that for some it would be fine, and for others it wouldn't. It's not intended to be a Biblical endorsement of the book. It's intended to be a guideline for those who are wondering about reading it.

 

I guess I could also say that the Kingdom of God is not about what we do or do not read, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spririt. By posting that chapter of the Bible, I had no intention of being controversial. I'm very sorry if it's offended anybody. Offense was not at all my intention.:001_smile:

 

Lori

[Sue G in PA]

So, those of you who HAVE read it and disagreed w/ the theology...could you share some of your biggest problems with it? It's not that I'm blind to them, just curious what some of you thought the biggest ones were, KWIM? Thanks for all the great opinions!

[KrissiK]

I started reading it (on recommendation) before I knew it was theologically unsound. I couldn't get past the first couple chapters when he was talking about the murder of the little girl, because I kept going into my 2-year old daughter's room while she was sleeping and crying and making sure she was ok. Why put myself through that? Stupid book. I put it down and didn't pick it up again!

[Cricket]

I haven't read the book but I read this review of it. It seems to explain pretty well why many Christians have a problem with the book.

[muffinmom]

I may not be able to get into a discussion about this, because I'm going to be away for a few days. But I just wanted to say this.

 

I read the book. I consider myself relatively conservative as a Christian. However, I do believe Christians should be careful not to assume that we have 100% correct theology at any given moment, because God is not able to be defined so neatly as that. There is a great possibility that most of us are dead wrong on many ideas about God (though not trying or desiring to be!). And I'm sure there are many things that are true about God that we would be surprised, even "offended", to discover.

 

I don't agree with everything I see in The Shack. But it's always good for us to be challenged, even if we come back to what we originally thought. Our faith will ultilmately be deepened or broadened. I think God would likely welcome continued seeking of Him, even if it takes you outside your comfort zone.

[OnTheBrink]

I don't think reading a novel is the same as reading false doctrine and making it OK. My children read myths and legends in their history studies. I certainly wouldn't allow that if I thought it would lead to false doctrine.

 

The spirit of Romans 14, imo, is that what is OK for some is not OK for others: "...Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

 

I did not post this passage to support reading The Shack. I posted it to say that for some it would be fine, and for others it wouldn't. It's not intended to be a Biblical endorsement of the book. It's intended to be a guideline for those who are wondering about reading it.

 

I guess I could also say that the Kingdom of God is not about what we do or do not read, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spririt. By posting that chapter of the Bible, I had no intention of being controversial. I'm very sorry if it's offended anybody. Offense was not at all my intention.:001_smile:

 

Lori

 

I'm not offended, not a bit! :)

 

I'm just very sensitive to deception. And, I believe that it's easy to fall into deception when people (in general) start finding things that are theologically unsound to be ok to engage in because in the end, they feel better about God.

 

I don't think I'm expressing myself well. What I mean is, satan comes as if a light and I think that he can (and does) use things that look ok but can take one's view of God and taint it. As satan said to Eve, "Did God REALLY say that?" That's how I view about 99% of "Christian" novels. Maybe it's just me, though. I find that I'd almost rather read secular novels than so-called Christian ones, because in the secular ones, it's quite easy to see the error and not get absorbed by it, where with things that are close to what I believe can better draw my attention from where it needs to be, because it looks so darn close and I feel so good about it after reading it.

 

Did that make sense?

[Nakia]

I read it, and I loved it! I am a conservative Christian as well. I felt so in touch with God when I read it. I am actually planning to read it again!

[LBC]

I'm not offended, not a bit! :)

 

I find that I'd almost rather read secular novels than so-called Christian ones, because in the secular ones, it's quite easy to see the error and not get absorbed by it, where with things that are close to what I believe can better draw my attention from where it needs to be, because it looks so darn close and I feel so good about it after reading it.

 

Did that make sense?

 

I think I hear what you're saying. It reminds me of when some of the Frank Peretti novels - This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness - were popular, and many Christians seemed to be fixated on spiritual warfare, and were behaving as though there was a "demon behind every bush". I read the first two books, but when I began The Oath, I just had to put it down. I knew it wouldn't be healthy for me to read it. I believe it is so important for us to be careful about what we read. I am at a place in my walk with God where I can read a lot of stuff without it effecting me negatively, but there was a time when that was not the case.

 

I think the main point is that we each follow our conscience on the matter.

 

Lori

[mcconnellboys]

I did read it. It is a work of fiction. I do think that it offers sound spiritual advice to ponder. I have read the attacks against it online.

 

I'm not sure what everyone here is referring to with regard to "unsound theology"? My understanding of God is "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", and that's precisely what's portrayed in the book. Am I forgetting something?

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I agree completely with this! I could not believe how many people read/watched the Da Vinci Code and the buzz that surrounded the book for more than a year, as if history had been rewritten and great wrongs of the church had been exposed! It shocked me that so many adults in the world (even those who were attending church regularly) were so ignorant of both the Bible and church history.

[angela in ohio]

But because if offends me when God is portrayed wrongly! ... I prefer to honor & know God by meditating on who He truly is according to His word to us.

 

This would be my feeling, too.

[HappyGrace]

I didn't have time to read all the responses in this thread-sorry! But I have a df who is kind of New-Agey that I finally got to go to church, and she was going along fine with it, but this book has thrown her totally off course.

 

Bottom line-I don't think it's horrible for grounded Christians to read, but it's a dangerous book for people who are not well-rooted in Scripture as their foundation before reading!

[Guest janainaz]

I loved The Shack.

 

I wanted to put it down due to the nature of the first couple chapters, it was honestly heart-wrenching.

 

But, I loved the picture it painted of the character of God and the way it gave some understanding of the role of the HS, Christ and God and yet, them all being one. It's a book to read with your heart and not your head. I think people look too much into the "correctness" of theology. If I did not have a Bible, I would still know the heart of God. His ways are written on my heart. It was not the Bible that drew me, it was the active, living, Spirit of God Himself. Truth speaks for itself. You know it when you know it.

 

You read that book with the heart of a parent for your child and it will sink in.

[Carol in Cal.]

I would not recommend it to an unbeliever or to someone who is new to the Faith.

 

I found it thought provoking, in a good way. I liked the way it gave me new ways to picture the Trinity and some other abstract theological truths. It reminded me of C. S. Lewis books in that regard. It seemed to handle the 'why do bad things happen to good people' issue better than most, and in a pretty nuanced way. That is unusual, and I appreciate it.

 

I worry about the seeming lack of necessity of salvation that the book presents as God's view. I can certainly understand the impulse to present it that way, but it doesn't seem quite Biblical to me. And that is the part that I think could be actively dangerous to an unbeliever.

 

I'm glad I read the book, but don't particularly want to read it again, and wouldn't readily give it to anyone else.

[mcconnellboys]

...It reminded me of C. S. Lewis books in that regard....

 

...I worry about the seeming lack of necessity of salvation that the book presents as God's view....

 

 

I agree that it seemed very similar to many of C. S. Lewis' works. And I would not recommend some of his more complicated works to new believers, either.

 

I'm trying to put my finger on what was in the book that indicated salvation was not necessary. I didn't read it that way. It seemed to me that the message was that God tries to woo us all into communion with him, but allows us the free will to choose. Can you (or someone) please point me to the part that deals with that issue? I may need to reread more closely....

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree that it seemed very similar to many of C. S. Lewis' works. And I would not recommend some of his more complicated works to new believers, either.

 

I'm trying to put my finger on what was in the book that indicated salvation was not necessary. I didn't read it that way. It seemed to me that the message was that God tries to woo us all into communion with him, but allows us the free will to choose. Can you (or someone) please point me to the part that deals with that issue? I may need to reread more closely....

 

Remember the part where the G-d figure was trying to get the MC to say which of his children he would torture or kill or something like that for their misdeeds? That part. And when he says, basically, none of them; you can't make me do this, that was praised enough to be presented as the whole story.

[Holly IN]

I've not read it. I've chosen not to read it *because* of the theological discrepancies. Why read a book that will portray God in a way that doesn't line up with Scripture? How is that helpful?

 

Exactly why I am not reading it!! I rather read the Bible!!

Also based on several reviews of this book: Discrepencies on salvation, the Trinity, God being everywhere and on our level, and so on. Why read something that doesn't align with scripture? I will not read it to prevent myself getting caught up in something that is not true!

 

Holly

[mcconnellboys]

Oh, so you mean that people see that as meaning that He will take everyone to Heaven, even if they're not saved? I didn't realize people were interpreting it that way.

 

I guess I just took that to mean that He would not choose between His children based on their sins (since all have sinned and all sin is the same). I didn't realize people would take that to mean that belief in Him was not necessary. Now I think I see why issues would be raised, thanks....

[laughing lioness]

I think I hear what you're saying. It reminds me of when some of the Frank Peretti novels - This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness - were popular, and many Christians seemed to be fixated on spiritual warfare, and were behaving as though there was a "demon behind every bush". I read the first two books, but when I began The Oath, I just had to put it down. I knew it wouldn't be healthy for me to read it. I believe it is so important for us to be careful about what we read. I am at a place in my walk with God where I can read a lot of stuff without it effecting me negatively, but there was a time when that was not the case.

 

I think the main point is that we each follow our conscience on the matter.

 

Lori

 

:iagree: I really was convicted (for lack of a better word) by the first of the Left Behind novels, though I had a friend who wouldn't touch them because she disagreed with the theology presented. After the 2nd book in the series though, I found them offensive. The violence seemed so gratuitous.

I have a very "young" Christian friend who read The Shack and finally got the help that she needed to care for herself and her family as a result. God used the book in a profound way in her life, reaching her when other people and situations didn't.

[Erica in PA]

But why *purposefully* read a book with theological errors in it?

 

Could you not get the "God loves you" message anywhere else? Is the *end* ("well, I really felt loved") worth the means ("Well, yeah, this was wrong, and this wasn't accurate, and that presents a false view of God.")?

:iagree: Very well said, Hillary!

[sassenach]

One of the things that really offended me about the book was the introduction. The way it presented the book as a memoir, rather than fiction really threw me off. In fact, I have had to correct several people who believed that the entire book was a true story. I really felt like I was lied to by the author, and that left a bad taste in my mouth. I tried to finish the book, but between the intro and the theology, I just keep putting it down. I think I've given up on it.

[mom2a&z]

I read The Shack for my book club a couple of months ago. I am a conservative Christian and I had huge problems with it.

 

1. The portrayal of God the Father was offensive to me. Where was God's holiness?

 

2. The Gospel message is incomplete. I know it's a work of fiction, but if you are going to write about how to have a relationship with God, you have to include the need for a saving faith in Christ and Christ alone. Without it, there is no relationship.

 

After my book club meeting, I threw the book in the trash because I didn't want an unbeliever or new Christian to read it.

 

I haven't lost a child or anyone close to me. Maybe if I had gone through that the book would have spoken to me and I could have overlooked the theology.

[Danestress]

the writing itself was just so so bad. I don't consider myself a major literature snob. I definitely read well outside of the "Great Books." And I realize that many of my posts are so full of errors that you all catch your breath and send PM's to each other about "poor illiterate Dana."

 

But the Shack was, in my opinion, pretty much unreadable. It was just crying out for an editor. I couldn't take it, and quit after about the half-way point. I don't understand how anyone could think it was a good book. I have friends who felt moved by his picture of our Lord and his relationship to us, but if you are all saying that the theology is bad anyway, I can't think of a reason to read it then. I sort of wondered if I was missing something by rejecting it for style, but I feel better now:)

[Lizzie in Ma]

Have no need or desire to defend either.:D

[Sweetpeach]

I loved The Shack.

 

I wanted to put it down due to the nature of the first couple chapters, it was honestly heart-wrenching.

 

But, I loved the picture it painted of the character of God and the way it gave some understanding of the role of the HS, Christ and God and yet, them all being one. It's a book to read with your heart and not your head. I think people look too much into the "correctness" of theology. If I did not have a Bible, I would still know the heart of God. His ways are written on my heart. It was not the Bible that drew me, it was the active, living, Spirit of God Himself. Truth speaks for itself. You know it when you know it.

 

You read that book with the heart of a parent for your child and it will sink in.

 

This post most reflects my feelings about The Shack. I believe that the Bible is God-Breathed and Inspired . . . I also believe in the Kingdom Now and Not Yet . . . the Supernatural Thin Spots that reveal the "active, living" way that God is God in whatever way He choses to be. I love all of God - Himself, His Son, His Spirit . . . and I thought The Shack pushed me out to my growing edge when it came to knowing more deeply the unconditional love of My Father.

 

Warmly, Tricia

[Jenn in Mo]

But why *purposefully* read a book with theological errors in it?

 

Could you not get the "God loves you" message anywhere else? Is the *end* ("well, I really felt loved") worth the means ("Well, yeah, this was wrong, and this wasn't accurate, and that presents a false view of God.")?

 

It has theological errors in it the same way that The Narnia series has theological errors. Yet both are edifying works of fiction.

 

For me, this was NOT a feely-good-wow-Gd-loves-me book. It was a glimpse at a new perspective. And honestly, I think it presents a much more biblical view of God than a lot of people would like to think.

[Johanna]

I think that the book is alright.....but, I had a hard time getting past the issue of Non-reverence towards God...I mean really....

everytime God approaches or comes near someone in the bible...what did the person do??..they fell to their knees and covered their faces.

The Shack really diminishes and makes light of the holiness of God (in my humble opinion).

[WTMindy]

I just finished it and honestly, I just didn't think it was that well written. I was expecting to like it (despite the theological problems), but I was just left with a "meh" feeling. I always cry at books, and I didn't cry at this book at all. I don't know why it just didn't move me the way I thought it would (based on my friends' reactions.)