Further Discussion about "The Shack"

topshot rhit wrote:

The Shack

Please read Burning Down 'The Shack'"

Amazon.com wrote:

Millions have bought into the theology of Paul Young, whose book The Shack portrays God as a loving, black woman. Similar changes in appearance were given to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The story of pain and redemption then resonated with the public. But is Young's worldview important? Is his theology that big a deal? James De Young thinks so. In fact, it's so important that he's written a compelling challenge to The Shack. In Burning Down the Shack, De Young manages to shed important light on the implications of Young's pluralistic faith, and provides readers with a gripping counter-balance to the popular little volume that's spent many weeks on the best-seller lists. Exploring the nature and character of God, from Scripture, De Young concludes that it is necessary to proceed carefully with The Shack, lest important truths be skewed and even jettisoned. Without being confrontational, De Young makes the case that dangers can lurk under the foundation.

^That's probably the nicest/friendliest way of confronting The Shack I've seen... I haven't read the book or seen the movie - nor do I intend to - but from all that I can tell, at best it's misleading and at worst it is completely heretical.

I haven't seen it either but what's the big hubbub about it?

ishmael81 wrote:

I haven't seen it either but what's the big hubbub about it?

In "The Shack" a man returns to an old shack near a campground where his kidnapped daughter had been murdered. While trying to come to terms with his anger and hatred towards the murderer, the man has a vision in which he is confronted by "God" (a middle-aged black woman), "Jesus" (a young, minds-his-own-business white man), and "The Holy Spirit" (a young, Asian woman). If that weren't insult enough to Christians, the author incorrectly presents many theological facts from the Gospel in the guise of instruction and counseling from the "Trinity"; for example, God supposedly shared Jesus' crucifixion (she has holes in her hands), and Jesus' death is a way to God, but not the only way. Most importantly, however, is that God loves and forgives everyone ... period. Yes, God loves everyone, but he does not forgive sins without repentance, without the sinner first admitting his guilt and that Jesus truly is the Son of God and that He came to earth as a man and allowed himself to be crucified in order to serve as the end-all sacrifice for all our sins, and furthermore that even our repentance and admission is not something we can do on our own, but only at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In short, the author pushes "universal forgiveness without condemnation," which if you think about it really is nothing more than Satan's original lie with different words: "surely you shall not die."

People argue that The Shack can be used as a tool to lead people to Christ, and it can be. After all, nothing is impossible with God, right? But one doesn't drink a bottle of whiskey to lead an alcoholic to Christ, or snort a line of cocaine to lead an addict to Christ. We as Believers need to not support The Shack while remaining open to the possibility of discussions with nonbelievers that go to it, and to offer gentle correction to Believers that do (which is what I am trying to do here .... I hope it's being seen as "gentle."  )

After reading The Shack I wondered why I finished it, and I regretted spending the time to read it. However, I also thank God for giving me the discernment to see that what the author was selling was not the true Gospel, but a false one. Which brings to mind a verse that happened to pop up in my devotions one day last week (if anything ever "just pops up" ... I'm sure it was more God-directed than coincidence!  )

Galatians 1:6-9 wrote:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

And here's something I learned today. I don't know the truth of it, as I've not read the book, so I will copy it directly:

Sojourner Gary (Facebook poster, Christian Metalheads International group) wrote:

Young's follow up book, Eve presents the Fall in a totally different light. As Young stated in an interview, his goal was to get Christians to rethink the Genesis narrative and mixes other creation stories from other religions. Basically Young tells us that Adam conspires with Satan to get Eve to sin, and therefore be blamed by God for sin entering the world. So God being really stupid and deceived by Satan and Adam blames Eve for everything and curses her an.d all women. Young has stated in interviews that the Genesis story is told from a mans point of view and is slanted toward punishing women and is patriarchal. 

That's scary stuff! That tells me the author of The Shack has an agenda that is not in line with God's agenda!

Ninja'd!

I haven't looked too much into it, but I've read a few articles and from what I can gather, the main accusations are 1) how the Trinity is personified (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and 2) it preaches universalism.  I did a quick internet search and this looks like a pretty in-depth yet straight-forward analysis:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/shack-helpful-or-heretical

BearDad wrote:

Quote :

"God" (a middle-aged black woman), "Jesus" (a young, minds-his-own-business white man), and "The Holy Spirit" (a young, Asian woman). If that weren't insult enough to Christians...

I certainly understand why the rest of what you wrote is concerning, but why is this insulting to Christians? Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand something with very, very little context.

^I think because of the Second Commandment:

God wrote:

4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

kerrick wrote:

^I think because of the Second Commandment:

God wrote:

4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That, and to me the whole premise of "how do we know God isn't a woman" nonsense that has been floating around since women's lib began. As John Piper (noted pastor and author) stated in a somewhat sarcastic Facebook post: "Our mother who art in heaven?" Some folks argue that if God is God and not human then no pronoun should apply; after all, God told Moses "I am" ... period. However, as humans our minds cannot grasp an sentient being with no sexual designation (or so it seems), so we need one or the other.

kerrick wrote:

^That's probably the nicest/friendliest way of confronting The Shack I've seen...  I haven't read the book or seen the movie - nor do I intend to - but from all that I can tell, at best it's misleading and at worst it is completely heretical.

By the way Kerrick, thanks. Your response is probably the nicest response I've gotten to any of my attempts to gently argue with folks, both Believers and otherwise. I have been trying to present my side, which is the right side of course (    ) with a little accusation and condemnation as possible. In most circumstances I am either ignored (which is OK) or told I am an self-righteous, pious J/A and should move south (  ), but I'm not giving up.

It's just a movie, right? No one is suggesting that we worship the lady representing God, right? It seems a heavy reaction to something as trivial as a film.


And if we're going to do that, where does the line stop? If I recall correctly, the original album cover for a Stryper album depicted angels throwing Satan out of heaven - that breaks the same law. I guess everyone around here should quit listening to them, right?



Not to mention, we shouldn't have pictures or anything representing Jesus, right? Precious Moments figures and everything - because after all, Jesus is now at the right hand of God in Heaven right now. I guess my grandmother is in real trouble for that right about now...



I just don't get it. It's a film. If someone isn't a Christian and tries to base their faith on that book and/or film and you know them, make friends with them instead of protesting it. Most non-Christians know all kinds of things we're against but nothing we actually approve of. And if someone is a believer and watches it, what harm is done? If your faith is so weak a movie can mess it up, that's a problem with you, not the movie.


I know I probably sound like a jerk and I'm not trying to. I just think we (Christians, not the group here at the board) spend a lot of time on stuff that probably doesn't matter as much as we think it does.

^ Sorry, but that's the same laissez faire attitude that too many Christians are taking. "It's just a movie" or "it's just a book." Is the Koran "just a book"? Is an "adult" film "just a movie"? The harm is that people will go to this movie and be further convinced that God is "all forgiving", establishing Jesus' sacrifice as unnecessary and ineffective. And concerning folks with weak faith, my approach is to try to help them see that they really should not be going for that very reason. There is no such thing as "just a ..."; sin is sin, and the author of The Shack is a false teacher attempting (and succeeding) in leading people astray.

As for protesting, I have not done that. I have been doing exactly what you suggested: an online friend indicated he is going to it so I asked him to read a book that points out the false theologies it teaches. 

And you might be right that Christians spend too much time worrying about the minor details, but as computer programmer I can tell you that it's the minor details that make or break the application. One semi-colon in the wrong place can cause the entire application to fail.

No offense, but it sounds to me like you're trying to justify going to it. By all means, do so. But please spend time in prayer before and after, and read the book I suggested (that started this whole string). Meanwhile I will pray you have enough discernment to see the false theology being preached and not be one of the many Christians that are being swayed.

I quoted Galatians 1:6-9 above, and I believe it still applies as much today as it did back then. Tell me, do you think Paul would go see it? How about Peter? And not to jump into the WWJD cliche, but would Jesus go see it? I think the answer is "no" for all of them, as they all told us to not be swayed by false gospels/teachers, and to even run from false theologies.

I understand your position, and I applaud you that you had the discussion with a friend. As I said, too many people know what Christians are against and not too much of what we approve of because we spout off publicly. To answer your questions, yes the Koran is just a book and porn is just a movie. That doesn't mean they don't have evil, horrible things in them just as it doesn't mean it would be wise for folks to partake of them. I think porn is completely wrong and would never watch it but to be honest, I have read part of the Koran. It didn't weaken my faith one iota - in fact, it strengthened it.

I'm not trying to justify anything - if I decide to see it, I'm well aware it's entertainment and not doctrine or theology. Same with the Noah movie - I haven't seen it but if I do, I expect it to be entertainment and not doctrine. That being said, I read about one theology book a month and I would like to hope that I would be able to notice the things that aren't Biblical in the movie.

Regarding the Galatians quote, are you implying that if someone sees the movie they are abandoning the Gospel, or just at risk of doing so? Big difference.

To answer your questions, I don't think Paul would be much of a movie goer; as best as scholars can tell, he was short, almost blind, not attractive and not likely to be at a social gathering like that. Peter probably would have gone, as he seems a bit more outgoing and social. And Jesus, well why wouldn't he go? The movie claims to be about Him, right? You'd think he'd like to see how accurate they got it. He'd probably even pay for Peter's popcorn.

Also, despite not agreeing, I find it great that you're passionate about pointing people to the truth.

^ Just the risk of doing so. People that believe in universal forgiveness without condemnation for sin, without requiring repentance, have abandoned the real Gospel (assuming they were Believers) for a false one.

BearDad wrote:

By the way Kerrick, thanks. Your response is probably the nicest response I've gotten to any of my attempts to gently argue with folks, both Believers and otherwise.

Haha right on.  

ishmael81 wrote:

It's just a movie, right? No one is suggesting that we worship the lady representing God, right? It seems a heavy reaction to something as trivial as a film.


And if we're going to do that, where does the line stop? If I recall correctly, the original album cover for a Stryper album depicted angels throwing Satan out of heaven - that breaks the same law. I guess everyone around here should quit listening to them, right?



Not to mention, we shouldn't have pictures or anything representing Jesus, right? Precious Moments figures and everything - because after all, Jesus is now at the right hand of God in Heaven right now. I guess my grandmother is in real trouble for that right about now...



I just don't get it. It's a film. If someone isn't a Christian and tries to base their faith on that book and/or film and you know them, make friends with them instead of protesting it. Most non-Christians know all kinds of things we're against but nothing we actually approve of. And if someone is a believer and watches it, what harm is done? If your faith is so weak a movie can mess it up, that's a problem with you, not the movie.


I know I probably sound like a jerk and I'm not trying to. I just think we (Christians, not the group here at the board) spend a lot of time on stuff that probably doesn't matter as much as we think it does.

With regards to your first statement, the problem is that it's not just a woman representing God, she IS God.  This article address that and more (and is response to an outcry from his other article about how The Shack breaks the 2nd Commandment).

As for Precious Moments characters, pictures of Jesus, The Passion Of The Christ, nativity scenes, and the like... yeah, I don't know honestly.  I had never read the 2nd Commandment like that prior, but there's some definite legitimacy to the claim that all of that is against God's Word.

The "harm" in books/movies such as this is probably pretty minor for the discerning and biblically-knowledgeable Christian, but it's being used as a means of evangelism to people who don't know much about Christianity at all and that is a HUGE problem.  If we [Christians] are spreading false "gospels" in the Name of Christ... that is no minor detail.

ishmael81 wrote:

I'm not trying to justify anything - if I decide to see it, I'm well aware it's entertainment and not doctrine or theology. Same with the Noah movie - I haven't seen it but if I do, I expect it to be entertainment and not doctrine. That being said, I read about one theology book a month and I would like to hope that I would be able to notice the things that aren't Biblical in the movie.

I think that article I linked above also mentioned this (or maybe it was another one I read...) but The Shack is NOT a fictional piece of entertainment with some "Christian" doctrine, values, or whatever thrown in. Narnia (for example) is an entertaining story in which one can see parallels to Christianity and might give them some insight to how God works, etc. The Shack's characters are God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. What the characters say is meant to be directly from the Trinity. What "God the Father" says in The Shack is [apparently] not in line with what the Bible teaches. If the whole movie were an allegory for the Trinity, it'd be different. But because it is not an allegory, it then becomes a much more serious matter. So I would argue that it IS a piece of doctrine/theology and NOT just entertainment (which it is too, of course).

I haven't had a chance to read (in depth) through all of these posts, but please remember that heated arguing/debating is not tolerated here at CHM.

So far it seems you are doing a good job of not plowing over each other's beliefs and feelings (and yes we have a wide range of faith beliefs here).  Please keep treating each other with respect and kindness.

Staybrite wrote:

I haven't had a chance to read (in depth) through all of these posts, but please remember that heated arguing/debating is not tolerated here at CHM.

So far it seems you are doing a good job of not plowing over each other's beliefs and feelings (and yes we have a wide range of faith beliefs here).  Please keep treating each other with respect and kindness.

Oh shut up and leave us alone!  

Staybrite wrote:

we have a wide range of faith beliefs here

This is the very reason in my first post (in response to topshot saying he was going to see the movie) all I did was refer him to a book that provides a counter view.

kerrick wrote:

The "harm" in books/movies such as this is probably pretty minor for the discerning and biblically-knowledgeable Christian, but it's being used as a means of evangelism to people who don't know much about Christianity at all and that is a HUGE problem.  If we [Christians] are spreading false "gospels" in the Name of Christ... that is no minor detail.

Well stated. I would also add that a "harm" that comes from going to "The Shack" is the financial support you are providing the theater for showing it, and therefore the production company for producing it, and ultimately the author. Mere pennies by the time it reaches him, I know, but pennies add up. Also, the Paul tells us to avoid making weaker Believers stumble; you may feel you are grounded enough to see the movie without your faith being affected, but what about a weaker brother or sister that sees you going to the movie and therefore feels it must be OK. Just as eating sacrificed meat (the object of Paul's discussion; say "drinking whiskey" for a modern example) might not bother me, if it bothers another Believer that I do so then I should not do so.

ishmael81 wrote:

I'm not trying to justify anything

Maybe "justifying" was the wrong word.

All I'm trying to say to Believers is that the Bible tells us to avoid false teachers, and there is lots of evidence to show that, despite "public opinion", the author of "The Shack" is a false teacher. To unbelievers I am merely trying to tell them, without being a "protester" or preaching at them, that what they will here in "The Shack" is not the true Gospel, but a lie told by someone that wishes to deceive them.

There's so much I could say, but think I should remain the man of few words I normally am. I'm not going to waste my time reading Burning Down since I'm pretty sure I know what he wrote. Apparently, he also is not very familiar with common writing techniques such as allegory, metaphors, etc. As a fairly conservative pentecostal, I have no problem recommending the movie to my fellow believers. It was well done and presented a unique and clever view of the Trinity (like any of us can understand it or fully explain it anyway) and how they worked together to bring someone through a difficult time. If someone wants to base all their theology on a fictional movie/book, then I guess they have some issues to deal with anyway. I don't think it was as far off as described in this thread, some of which I'd say is just plain untrue though I have not read the book (my wife has and thought the movie was fairly close for the most part).

BearDad wrote:

kerrick wrote:

The "harm" in books/movies such as this is probably pretty minor for the discerning and biblically-knowledgeable Christian, but it's being used as a means of evangelism to people who don't know much about Christianity at all and that is a HUGE problem.  If we [Christians] are spreading false "gospels" in the Name of Christ... that is no minor detail.

Well stated. I would also add that a "harm" that comes from going to "The Shack" is the financial support you are providing the theater for showing it, and therefore the production company for producing it, and ultimately the author. Mere pennies by the time it reaches him, I know, but pennies add up. Also, the Paul tells us to avoid making weaker Believers stumble; you may feel you are grounded enough to see the movie without your faith being affected, but what about a weaker brother or sister that sees you going to the movie and therefore feels it must be OK. Just as eating sacrificed meat (the object of Paul's discussion; say "drinking whiskey" for a modern example) might not bother me, if it bothers another Believer that I do so then I should not do so.

If you are going to paint with such broad brush, then a Christian should not go to a theater EVER.  Most movies contain unblblical situations and paint sin to be just your fun choice with little recourse.   Just walking in a theater, even if you are to see a Christian film (not counting The Shack right now), would mislead people and cause them to stray.  Thus, Christians should not go to the movies, hit the Redbox, or have cable/satellite/Netflix.  Period.  That's the ONLY outcome you can have from what you just said.

Personally, I haven't seen the movie.  I will, Lord willing, but I haven't yet.  I read the books.  If you are familiar with allegory, then this is a fine piece of fiction that will give people baby steps towards the Lord.

Funny how no one here or on any other Christian metal site called out Steve as a heretic for this...

alldatndensum wrote:

BearDad wrote:

kerrick wrote:

The "harm" in books/movies such as this is probably pretty minor for the discerning and biblically-knowledgeable Christian, but it's being used as a means of evangelism to people who don't know much about Christianity at all and that is a HUGE problem.  If we [Christians] are spreading false "gospels" in the Name of Christ... that is no minor detail.

Well stated. I would also add that a "harm" that comes from going to "The Shack" is the financial support you are providing the theater for showing it, and therefore the production company for producing it, and ultimately the author. Mere pennies by the time it reaches him, I know, but pennies add up. Also, the Paul tells us to avoid making weaker Believers stumble; you may feel you are grounded enough to see the movie without your faith being affected, but what about a weaker brother or sister that sees you going to the movie and therefore feels it must be OK. Just as eating sacrificed meat (the object of Paul's discussion; say "drinking whiskey" for a modern example) might not bother me, if it bothers another Believer that I do so then I should not do so.

If you are going to paint with such broad brush, then a Christian should not go to a theater EVER.  Most movies contain unblblical situations and paint sin to be just your fun choice with little recourse.   Just walking in a theater, even if you are to see a Christian film (not counting The Shack right now), would mislead people and cause them to stray.  Thus, Christians should not go to the movies, hit the Redbox, or have cable/satellite/Netflix.  Period.  That's the ONLY outcome you can have from what you just said.

Personally, I haven't seen the movie.  I will, Lord willing, but I haven't yet.  I read the books.  If you are familiar with allegory, then this is a fine piece of fiction that will give people baby steps towards the Lord.

Wow, talking about jumping to extremes. I'm not painting with a broad brush, I'm repeating what the Apostle Paul says. If what he says is too restrictive, well ...

As long as your playing the "jump to extremes" game, we better all climb into a hole and quit buying food at the local grocery store, because they sell magazines that are put out by the same companies that put out "adult" magazines, and we don't want to support them or be seen supporting them.

As for jumping to the extreme of saying no movies ever, you've just argued the stance taken by many denominational churches, at least during the 70s and 80s.

Candlemass wrote:

Funny how no one here or on any other Christian metal site called out Steve as a heretic for this...

Never saw it. Did he alter the Gospel? Or was he simply telling the story with music?

Portraying God the Father as a black man...