Readers should pay careful attention to genre and intent before they stand up as critics. Be an honest reader and let this amazing novel expand your vision of who God is in practical, every day expressions. Jesus did this in Matthew 23 (looking back to Old Testament imagery) when He likened himself to a big bird wanting to embrace her young…but they would not! If you will, remember the way the Bible opens, with the Spirit of God “hovering” over the face of the deep, imagery of the Spirit as a big bird…and the content of that image is set (grammatically) as a female bird! It’s an IMAGE designed to help us understand the personality and passion of our God! Even the old, crusty apostle Paul described himself to the Thessalonians as a mother, or nurse, caring for her young! The Bible describes God and his nurturing in many, rich ways, and maybe, just maybe, this novel will open some eyes to the possibilities.

I am surprised at how many people are taken in by this book! It took me a long time to convince those around me that this is NEW AGE cleverly disguised within Christian doctrine. I have read the book and will soon write a review on it in my mother tongue in order to inform as many as I can. The idea that our God is also the god of other religions is appalling, yet many people did not see that subtle revelation. Same goes for the unbiblical paragraph of the Trinity wanting to submit to us. Unfortunately, the author has cleverly disguised the contents by getting the reader on an emotional hype while comforting them with familiar doctrine. The author also clearly indicated his dislike in the Bible (p66 and the ABSENCE of it in the book) and in churches.
What worries me is that so many reviews stated that this book changed their lives. It seems then that this book is doing what the Bible have failed to do, and that’s almost the scariest thought of all.

I LOVE Mark Driscoll — even his rantings on Emergent Theology (which I agree with Driscoll) and femanism phobia (kidding — but Mark does come of hyper macho at times). I also love Driscoll when he comes back to cnetr and apologizes for rantings that go way over the line — show him to be passionate yet human.

The point Mark Driscoll makes that leaves me feeling he missed the point is that God the Father first appears as an African American woman just to break the preconconeptions of the Mack. Later in the book God the Father appears as a man because Mack will need a father figure to face that days revelations.

I guess the whole “graven image” argument would be mute for Driscoll of at The Shack we had the Middle Eastern figure, Jesus, and the Asian chick, Holy Spirit, without the Papa figure, God. Maybe it would have been better to give the Asian figure wings — preferably white like a dove – and just let God the Father be the booming voice from the sky like at Jesus baptism in Scripture.

As for the modalism argument, I really think the authro just used sloppy wording and imagery to try and correct a misconception that some may have through reading the book that the 3 are so separate they lose their oneness. But hten again, I am assuming much on the side of grace for the authro with limited vocabulary to work with.

My final assesment – the more you tell people, including Christians, NOT to read a book the more they will actually do so. The same was true fro the DaVinci Code book and movie. (What is it about forbidden fruit that we love so much?)

Avoidance of controversy and issues like this are norm for the church. The TRUTH will survivie any challenge and any debate. I do not agree with some of the doctrine and theology presented in the book. I am THRILLED that several people in my church who have lived at distance from following Christ as well as many more who have never attended church and been turned off by church and faith in Christ as they have witnessed in being lived or not-lived by others are reading the book and asking questions and reconsidering their views of God and faith and church that have kept them away.

I tedn to approach these things like the Apostle Paul in Athens. I don’t set out to slam the teachings of false religions (Greek Mythology and Paganism) or even the cultural artists of the day (like the Greek poets) but search for a connecting point that serves a launching pad to help direct and guide people to the TRUTH of God and man and sin and salvation as revealed IN SCRIPTURE. The Shack is giving me lots of connecting points.

“Men of Athens, I can see that you are religious people…let’s talk about the UNKONWN GOD.” (Acts 7)

And let’s face it, as a pastor and one whose life is devoted solely to the mission of helping people living far from God to connect with Him through the salavation of Jesus Christ, it can sometimes be more effective to tell some, “why don’t you read The Shack and then let’s talk” instead of “why don’t read THE BIBLE and let’s talk”. Sad but true — too many have formed opinions about the BIble without ever reading and the set out to dicredit it to others who have not read it.

How is what we are doing different if we fail to read The Shack and persuade others to do the same?

The Shack is interesting and may be an entry point to someone really starting their pursuit of God as long as the BIBLE is next on their list of books to read. Wonder if Amazon has thought of packaging the two together?

so many of my friends have read it and it touched each of us in different chapters…as it does connect with each of our points of “great sadness” and wonderings if God really is there and knows how much we hurt…and to put it in fiction makes it work…its a story…with biblical concepts…

I don’t get inspired by Rembrandt – full stop. Doesn’t mean I bag it OK? Personally my kids are the best “art form” God uses to teach me about Him. Don’t need paint spots on some canvas to replace this. And I don’t see it as sad to think like this. As for his picture, there is nothing in it to contradict scripture so to use this as an example is pretty silly.

As far as the trinity and modalism is concerned, you say it perfectly yourself:

“The book, using human language and human frailty, feebly attempts to put into language the distinctive persons which are all one.” Frailty and feebleness results in comments such as the Father saying, “In Jesus I became fully human.” Jesus dies on the cross – not the Father. The Father sent the Son – the Father stayed in Heaven, the Son went to earth. The Father forsook the Son as He died on the cross – the Father did not forsake Himself.

I’m not going to argue this point with you any longer because whats the point?

As for your rant on Driscoll, well that’s just so sad. Only misguided people label him as a male dominator. Real women love his take on things. And real men are humbled by the responsibilities given to them as men.

It is not a matter of whether or not one “needs” Rembrandt, it is about whether or not a person can appreciate the gift that Rembrandt brings to the table. Millions of people have been awestruck by God without Rembrandt. The discussion has to do with how God uses a particular art form (writing being one of them) to teach and inspire us. If we are unable to appreciate the art form for what it is, to let God work in our lives, not as a substitute for the Holy Spirit but as a frail human agent; that is sad.

As far as you passing off the comment about modalism on MD as if you didn’t agree, you might want to read your own blog. It is pretty apparent that you agree.

Wasn’t God (triune) fully human in Jesus? Was not God (triune) present in the Son? Was not the Son fully God (triune)? Our minds have a hard time with the distinction of the Triune Persons which are fully one, but none-the-less it is true. Line 36 of the Athanasian Creed – “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.”

The book did not portray God in three modes. The book, using human language and human frailty, feebly attempts to put into language the distinctive persons which are all one. Just as no painting can fully capture the beauty of what the eye can see, so no book can truly express the beauty of the Triune God. But, “a graven image”? “Modalism”? Sorry, way way off and an poor excuse for a critique. Worse yet, another way for a very dogmatic person to “justify” their disagreement with someone because they see relationship as more egalitarian than an excuse for male domination.

First of all, thanks for stopping by and sharing your views.

For starters lets get the definition of modalism: “the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.”

Secondly, it was Driscoll, not me, which commented on modalism. If you check out his video, you will see his point – which stands strong despite your words. Sorry.

How could the Father say that He is fully human in Christ? even a simple person would see that as a stretch. Did the Father die on the cross? i don’t think so. It’s this type of mish mash of different doctrines which makes The Shack a “trinity shocker”.

As for the Rembrandt painting – I saw it and it didn’t do anything for me. The style of painting is not something I admire. But does that make me a lessor person? I don’t think so. For me to wonder about how the Father welcomes back such people, I don’t need a painting to inspire. I read. I sit back back and am blown away. I don’t need Rembrandt. If you think that’s sad then so be it.

Do you have any idea what modalism is? Are you familiar with writing styles/genres? You might want to re-read John 17:21-23 before you make too many comments about the book and the claim that it is modalistic. Unity, participation and oneness are not the same as modalism, but they are exactly what Jesus said was shared in the God-head.

The author paints a picture of a God that equally agrees with/shares in the immense sacrifice of the Son dying for all mankind (Remember, it was the Father who sent His only begotten Son, He wasn’t angry in heaven and put up with the Son dying). The fact that the three God characters/depictions (not “graven images” as Driscoll so ignorantly states) are THREE distinct characters seems to suggest the trinity, not the Father manifesting in three modes, as modalism suggests.

I wonder if a person like you would sit in front of a painting like “The Return of the Prodigal Son” by Rembrandt and find worship flowing from their heart to the God who gave such painting gifts and would love so deeply as to receive people like me back into “his house”, or if you would critique the painter and question his theology. So very sad!

“The dysfunctional religious status quo is threatened, so you throw stones rather than taking opportunity to re-examine your presuppositions.”

I’m sorry buddy, but when it comes to doctrine, there is nothing dysfunctional except man’s interpretation of it.

“I wonder what kind of fictional/allegorical depictions of God would be acceptable to you”

I like allegorical interpretations – as long as they don’t contradict scripture and don’t contain pagan/New Age ideas.

“I find it particularly interesting that you include in your criticism Jesus’ appearance as a plain-looking but big-nosed Mideastern guy, when this description is as nearly historically accurate as you can get.”

For the record, I don’t have an issue with this description.

I’d be keen to know which areas of the book didn’t sit well with you. As for the wisdom contained therein and how it “overshadows” the crap doctrinal issues, well my friend, give me doctrine over man’s wisdom any day.

maryann – I couldn’t care less about a church hidden under a rock. What I care about is subtle attacks upon doctrine which, on their own, may not amount to much – but as a collective make a huge impact.

this is what has been a major problem i have had with alot of people…
“i dont have to read it…but i will tell everyone else not to read it either.”

how can you?

so much of the church has hidden under a rock in fear…like Azk says, in effect, if it is Kingdom it will stand…if not, it will fail.

Just kidding. Obviously I don’t know you, and would guess you’re probably not “lazy”, but I find it sad and amusing at the same time the tendency of so many “reviewers” to condemn books they’ve never read. The dysfunctional religious status quo is threatened, so you throw stones rather than taking opportunity to re-examine your presuppositions.

I wonder what kind of fictional/allegorical depictions of God would be acceptable to you – surely he can appear to us in any form he chooses, why are “the Shack”s examples so offensive?

I find it particularly interesting that you include in your criticism Jesus’ appearance as a plain-looking but big-nosed Mideastern guy, when this description is as nearly historically accurate as you can get.

Don’t get me wrong, I found “the Shack” quite challenging in some respects, and I’m not at all certain I agree with all its implications (has a book ever been written that you agreed with 100%), but such doctrinal questions were vastly overshadowed by the wealth of wisdom in Young’s words and in the power of the story itself.

The book may step on the toes of those who live in police-state Christianity, but I guarantee Satan will not leap off the page. If the book has no substance, then it will go the way of the Da Vinci Code–meaning forgotten.

I’m not about to waste my time and money reading things like this. I trust the reviews given above regarding this book and wont waste my time. But I will spend time exposing the book for what it’s worth.

Wow.

Why not read the book first and make up your own mind about it? It’s FICTION, by the way.

Read it as a story, not as a theological treatise.