Further Discussion about "The Shack"

Seriously, you're going to use that passage by Paul to show how someone may cause a fellow believer to think it's ok to go see The Shack if he sees you go see it...did you seriously say that?!

Candlemass wrote:

Portraying God the Father as a black man...

Why would anyone call Steve out for that? Jesus wasn't a WHITE man, and yet the entire western world portrays him as such! Steve was probably more accurate than everyone else!

Candlemass wrote:

Seriously, you're going to use that passage by Paul to show how someone may cause a fellow believer to think it's ok to go see The Shack if he sees you go see it...did you seriously say that?!

You better believe it! The entire story behind The Shack is a FALSE GOSPEL! It is HERESY! There is no greater danger to young believers than seeing people they look up to accept something that is heretical as gospel!

Good gravy!

The issue of Steve was not portraying the Father as a black man, but portraying the Father as a man, period. However, as in The Shack, it's just imagery used to communicate truth...

I'm done with this thread. 

I typed one single line, a suggestion to someone else that he read a book that explains the heresies within The Shack. I didn't even post "don't go," just a suggestion of further reading. From there it turned into explaining what The Shack is about and why I don't feel Believers should go see it (funny how I never posted that; it was apparently just assumed), and now it feels like it's turning into a "you're too extreme" thread, one where I feel like my convictions are being challenged more than the issues in The Shack.

Yes, they are being challenged, sorry you can't handle that...

Sheesh. It's a work of fiction, not biblical canon.

BearDad wrote:

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.

I understand your point but earlier you quoted John Piper, who I personally believe teaches a false gospel. So... I don't even know where to go with a response...

ishmael81 wrote:

I understand your point but earlier you quoted John Piper, who I personally believe teaches a false gospel. So... I don't even know where to go with a response...

Try here...

Seriously though, how is it that you consider John Piper teaches a "false gospel?"

Of course, I could be wrong...

http://www.equip.org/article/christian-think-shack/

Candlemass wrote:

Seriously though, how is it that you consider John Piper teaches a "false gospel?"

I've read quite a bit of his stuff and listened to several sermons on podcast. He goes so far on the Calvinist side it's hard to bear. To hear him talk, humans have no choice about anything at all. God ordained every act for all of history for all of mankind.

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.

I read the article you posted--thanks, it was an interesting read.  There is a problem with his use of the second commandment as an argument against the depictions in The Shack:  the second commandment does not prohibit us from visual representations of God.  If it did, then Scripture itself would be in violation of this commandment since God is portrayed as a person walking around in corporeal form (in the Garden with Adam and Eve and when Moses saw him walk by on the mountain), a rock, a fortress, and a hen.  The Bible also talks about God by referencing human body parts (arms, ears, mouth, eyes...).  God even self-represented as fire and cloud.  Part of the misunderstanding here comes from reading Jewish Scripture through a Christian lens.  The Hebrew word for heaven is an indistinct term that refers to the dwelling place of God and the sky/atmosphere/space.  By saying not to make an image "in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below," God is referring to anything in Creation.  But the commandment is not against making the image, it is against making that image AND worshiping that image as if it was God.  It is treating the image AS God that is the problem.  Where the author got the idea that Israel built the golden calf as a way to better relate to Yahweh I don't know, but Exodus clearly tells us that it was created as a substitute god--

Quote :

Exodus 32:1-4 (ESV) 
1  When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 
2  So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 
3  So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 
4  And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 

Perhaps Aaron thought of it as a representation of Yahweh, but the people had given up on Moses (since he had been gone 40 days) and gave this calf the worship and credit that belonged to Yahweh.

Ninja'd again!

topshot rhit wrote:

...Apparently, he also is not very familiar with common writing techniques such as allegory, metaphors, etc...

Samson wrote:

Sheesh. It's a work of fiction, not biblical canon.

Here's an excerpt from that article I posted earlier which might help clarify why this may not be the case...  {Bolding by me]

Tim Challies wrote:

The first key difference between The Shack and Narnia is one of genre. What genre is C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series? I would argue that it is allegorical fiction, but not full-out allegory. According to The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, an allegory is “a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning.” Further, allegory “involves a continuous parallel between two (or more) levels of meaning in a story, so that its persons and events correspond to their equivalents in a system of ideas or a chain of events external to the tale.” Discussions and definitions of the term invariably point to The Pilgrim’s Progress as the most notable English-language example. Bunyan’s tale is an allegory because every major character, setting, and plot twist closely corresponds with a Christian idea or doctrine. The main character represents believers, his pilgrimage represents the Christian life, his burden represents sin, and so on. The key to allegory is the intentional, ongoing, and substantial parallel between the fictional world and the real world.

The Narnia books are not fully allegorical because they do not involve a continuous and substantial parallel between Narnia’s world and our own, or between the mythology of Narnia and the tenets of Christianity. But they undoubtedly do involve a general parallel, so that the perpetual winter of Narnia corresponds in some details to humanity’s state of sinfulness while the White Witch corresponds in some details to the devil. Yet there are many other elements of this universe that have no identifiable parallel. It would be a wrong reading of Narnia to assign great significance to the lamppost, the fawn, or other incidental characters and details.

A right reading of Narnia does not lead to the declaration, “Aslan is Jesus,” but the realization, “Aslan is like Jesus.”

Here is how Lewis explained his most memorable creation, the lion Aslan: “[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, ‘What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?’” Aslan is a Christ-like figure, but is not Christ. We should expect to find a general but not perfect correspondence between the words and deeds of Aslan and the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. A right reading of Narnia does not lead to the declaration, “Aslan is Jesus,” but the realization, “Aslan is like Jesus.” Lewis meant for Aslan to evoke a kind of wonder that would cause the reader to search for someone in the real world who is equally awe-inspiring.

What genre is The Shack? Some describe it as allegory, but according to established definitions, this is not the correct genre. It does not have “a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning.” Neither does it feature a “continuous parallel between two (or more) levels of meaning” in its story. Mack does not stand in for all of humanity and the cabin does not represent a universal spiritual epiphany. It does not veil its plain meaning behind a figurative one. Young himself denies his work is an allegory.

So what is The Shack? I believe it is best described as didactic fiction. Didactive works are “designed to impart information, advice, or some doctrine of morality or philosophy.” This descriptor fits because The Shack is a story meant to teach doctrinal or theological truth. It is not a story that stands on its own, but a story that exists to teach. Through the narrative, the reader comes to learn about the nature and works of God. Young means to impart new information and correct false information, and ultimately, to have the reader realize with Mack, “I [God] am not who you think I am.” In this way, The Shack is a distinctly theological novel in the same genre as Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian or Trevin Wax’s Clear Winter Nights.

Thus, Narnia is allegorical fiction that engages select tenets of the Christian faith through their analogs in a fantastical world. This created world has a similar but not identical religious system and its story is told through similar but not fully-corresponding characters. The Shack is didactic fiction that engages select tenets of the Christian faith in a realistic world through characters meant to accurately represent divine persons described in the Bible.

I highly recommend reading that whole article...  Here's the link again:
http://www.challies.com/articles/why-papa-of-the-shack-is-not-aslan-of-narnia



As for John Piper preaching a "false gospel"... wow, that's a pretty huge claim.  The Arminianism vs Calvinism debate is one that'll never end so no need to get into that here.  But from what I've seen, even the staunchest of either side consider both to be within the realms of orthodox Christianity - meaning that while they make believe strongly that the other is wrong, it is not false in the sense that believing the "other side" is a one-way ticket to hell.

kerrick wrote:

As for John Piper preaching a "false gospel"... wow, that's a pretty huge claim.  The Arminianism vs Calvinism debate is one that'll never end so no need to get into that here.  But from what I've seen, even the staunchest of either side consider both to be within the realms of orthodox Christianity - meaning that while they make believe strongly that the other is wrong, it is not false in the sense that believing the "other side" is a one-way ticket to hell.

It is a pretty huge claim, and one that I can freely make on the interwebs.

That being said, I'm happy to explain further but I don't intend to get into a debate.

Mr. Piper believes (as I alluded to earlier) that God has caused any and every human action for all of history in order to bring himself glory. This includes rape, murder, war, sex trafficking, pestilence and hangnails. I propose that if God caused evil, he isn't really the God portrayed in the Bible or through Jesus because that God is incapable of committing or causing evil.

Not only would this make God evil, it would absolve us of any responsibility of the wrong-doing.

I do believe that God has made certain things happen, and will continue to do so. However, I don't think he's the creator of evil despite using evil events to draw glory to himself.

DANGIT GUYS STOP NINJA'ING ME!!!

messiaen77 wrote:

...a bunch of good stuff...

Great minds think alike.  Funny, I had almost identical thoughts/critiques when I read that article too.  As for the golden calf: yeah, I have no idea where the author got that from.  I've never heard that interpretation before.  As for the Second Commandment, I'm still on the fence about that.  It seems strange and somewhat convenient that because of this movie, all of the sudden there's an outcry towards making images of God when for who-knows-how-long we (Christians) have had nativity scenes in our homes, picture-Bibles as kids, etc.

One thing I disagree with though is your suggestion that if this is how we are to read the Second Commandment, then God is in violation of His laws.  For one, those laws are made for people, not God.  Christ in person form (or God the Father in cloud form, etc.) is not a "carved image" in the sense that we're commanded against making.  I think the critical part here in understanding this commandment is whether or not the verse 5 - a separate sentence - is one continuous thought connected with verse 4 OR if they are simply "connected" thoughts.  Does "don't make carved images of beings from heaven" [that's the Kerrick Paraphrase Version KPV] and "don't bow down to them" together or separate?  Should we read it as, "don't make any carved images of beings from heaven to bow down to" instead?  I don't know?  That's how I've understood it in the past and I just never questioned it until now.

Honestly, concerning The Shack, it is a work of fiction.  I wasn't really impressed with the quality of writing, but that's neither here nor there.  I think it presents an interesting view of God that I cannot totally agree with, but that I wouldn't put in the category of heresy.  I think for the story, a feminine view of God was important.  The main character needed comfort and nurturing, attributes our society typically identifies as "feminine" traits.  My boys love me and call on me for about 99% of the stuff they need, but when they get hurt or are scared, they want Mommy.  I don't remember enough of the book to know what the parts that promote universalism are supposed to be, but I have no problem with the idea of God having already forgiven all the sins of all people and don't think it in any way conflicts with an orthodox view of sin and salvation.  I understand people who take this stuff seriously and speak out against it.  I respect their convictions, I just disagree with them.  If that makes me part of the problem, then pray that God would change me.  Until it happens though, I'm not going to let a book/movie

Protestants use that passage, ad nauseam, to attack Catholics all the time, w/their glaring lack to understand what it is really prohibiting...

Even Kerrick leaves out the key...perhaps on purpose?

Candlemass wrote:

Protestants use that passage, ad nauseam, to attack Catholics all the time, w/their glaring lack to understand what it is really prohibiting...

Even Kerrick leaves out the key...perhaps on purpose?

Which passage? Exodus 20? Because Catholics have Jesus on the cross in their churches while Protestants have an empty cross? Of the many knocks I've heard towards Catholicism, that's one that has never come up. With regards to Jesus on/off the cross, I've heard sentiments from Protestants like, "well our crosses are empty to accentuate Christ's defeat of death" or something along those lines, but never that Jesus being on the cross was a violation of the Second Commandment* (until now with that article on The Shack).

Back on topic though, I think whether or not The Shack is a violation of the Second Commandment might be a "secondary" (har har) issue and possibly one best saved for another discussion because it has massive implications towards a heck of a lot more than just the movie. The more pertinent points to the discussion of The Shack I think are "God" saying things in the book that are inconsistent with biblical Truth, elements of universalism, and experience versus what God says in the Bible.

*Every time I write that, I want to say "Second Amendment" hahahaha.

Lol, I had nothing of such in mind!

"Back on topic?" As if I was off...

Candlemass wrote:

Lol, I had nothing of such in mind!

So... you don't care to clarify/elaborate then?

Candlemass wrote:

"Back on topic?" As if I was off...

This thread is/was about The Shack, not Catholics vs Protestants. I asked you to clarify, said what I thought you meant, commented on that - which was off topic, and then brought it back to The Shack. I'm not sure what your critique is?

Good grief! I was in no way turning this into a Prot/Cat thread, I was simply responding to the passage, which should have been obvious, about the command to make no carved images that you shall not bow down to...and here is comes sports fans, "so as to worship them!"

Ok that's all I was asking for. Thank you!

Furthermore, yes this is a discussion about The Shack, but like every "normal discussion", it get broken down, other topics come up that are germane to the discussion, as were mine...