SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Blasphemy of "The Shack"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Blasphemy of "The Shack"

Many have commented on the dangerous nature of "The Shack" in this forum. Below is copy of an email sent by promoters of that book, encouraging readers to a "theological" course on the book and its chapters.

Quote:
------------------------------------------
Hi everyone!

I wanted to announce the online Fall class (from Sept-Dec 2009) at Trinitarian Online Theological School (http://www.covenant-love.org/tots/):

A Journey through "The Shack" - In this class, we go through each chapter of the book in detail, and also study all the great themes of the book. If you wanted a more thorough reading of the book, or wanted to study the theological themes of the book in greater detail, then this is the course for you! Many people on the forum have taken the course and told me how much it has helped them in their walk with Papa.

I have had several hundred people go through this course, and always tell me how it helped them understand more of the book and its theological themes.

This class starts up on Sept 28, 2009. There are small fees for each class to cover all materials (text, audio, video) that you need for the course.

There is no set "meeting time". You can login and participate as you have time. Also, there are no heavy time obligations. And everything you need is inside this online course.

Regards,
The theshackbook.com Team.

http://theshackbook.com/discuss/index.php

-------------------------------------

I say again that this is pure blasphemy. Presenting fictional book characters as if they were God the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, and then now presenting that book as worthy of study like Holy Scripture is irreverent, demeaning, and desecrating the name of our Almighty God.

I pray that all believers will speak up and denounce this book. Too many are blinded and have embraced this book as "of God".

In Christ's Love,
Leo

 2009/9/7 12:36Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re: Blasphemy of "The Shack"

The Shack is a sickening book! Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIBy0Bkk1ks It clearly shows that William Young is a universalist.


_________________
Jordan

 2009/9/7 18:26Profile









 Re:

My Sister in law said she loved it. She claims that it has brought her a lot closer to God. She wanted me to read it but I told her that I had no desire for it. I haven't read the reviews or the bad that is associated with it. What she told me sounded something like Pilgrims Progress. When I looked at the cover, I thought it was Stephen King thriller.

 2009/9/7 20:45
Laviver
Member



Joined: 2009/1/11
Posts: 98


 Re:

That's the problem with this generation. Everything is based upon experience, subjectivesness, and emotional response without any regard for truth in any capacity.

 2009/9/8 0:19Profile
Cambridge
Member



Joined: 2009/9/10
Posts: 5


 Re:

re: "presenting that book as worthy of study like Holy Scripture is irreverent, demeaning, and desecrating the name of our Almighty God.

I pray that all believers will speak up and denounce this book. Too many are blinded and have embraced this book as "of God".'

I must agree that if someone were to present their book as worthy of study, like Scripture, that it would at least raise alarms in my mind. However, I suppose we differ in terms of what is meant in the course description. I looked up the course reference and discovered the following:

Course Objective:
This class will look at the book "The Shack" by William P. Young to examine literary concepts such as allegory and metaphor, along with the central themes of God's love, the Trinity, and the living of the Christian life. We will examine parallels with the Christian faith demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God. Finally, some of the controversies surrounding the book will be discussed and dealt with. This is a 12 week course, starting on September 28, 2009.

To me this says that the course will study the precepts and themes of that which is illustrated by the book. That is quite different than studying the book to see what it says. They are suggesting that they will be teaching from Scripture that which is "demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God." I see no problem or reason to be alarmed.
As for the book itself and its worth, I for one recognize that it is not a theological treatise but an allegory. As such one views it differently than a textbook on theology. It is a story that illustrates the tender heart of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a story of healing and forgiveness where neither was thought possible.
Even though I approached the book with the same negative attitude expressed here in this post, I was taken by the story from the very beginning, thrilled by the truths it presented and in the manner that they were told. By the end of the book I concluded that the author had done a magnificent job of story writing and was to be applauded for his imaginative style.
I do not usually have much use for works of fiction but there are the few I would recommend including the works of John Bunyan and Charles Sheldon. I would eagerly add The Shack by William P Young to my list of recommended reading.
To DeepThinker, your sister-in-law says that she loved it, I did too and desire actually to reread it but for now I have given it to my sister-in-law in the hopes that she will see and come to understand the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit too. She is in much need of the same sort of healing as Mack, the central figure of the book.
I know that in this post my recommendation of The Shack will be challenged but I stand by it as a wonderful read and I am saddened when I hear the criticisms of those that can't see the book for what it is. It was written for the author's children, not for publication, but even soI find it most appealing and worthy of a read. Worse yet are the criticisms of those that have yet to read it and argue without firsthand knowledge, not suggesting that those here have yet to read it but so often I find that the fiercest arguments against it come from those who get their information secondhand.

 2009/9/13 16:34Profile
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

Dear Cambridge,

Thank you for your candid response concerning your take on "The Shack". You said...

Quote:
As for the book itself and its worth, [b]I for one recognize that it is not a theological treatise but an allegory[/b]. As such one views it differently than a textbook on theology. It is a story that illustrates the tender heart of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a story of healing and forgiveness where neither was thought possible.


And therein lies the danger. You are fortunate to have been able to recognize that this is basically a literary piece, and not a modern-day revelation from God. The authors and promoters of this book seem to be awfully shy about making this clear to the public. [b]How many of the hundreds that have read this book look at it as mere literary fiction?[/b]
Quote:
Course Objective: This class will look at the book "The Shack" by William P. Young to [b]examine literary concepts[/b] such as allegory and metaphor, along with the central themes of God's love, the Trinity, and the living of the Christian life. We will examine parallels with the Christian faith demonstrated throughout the story and characters of the book covering topics such as repentance, faith, the wrath of God, the exchanged life, and the practical truth of the Trinitarian God. Finally, some of the controversies surrounding the book will be discussed and dealt with. This is a 12 week course, starting on September 28, 2009.


This course description was not included in the email. [b]There was no mention in the email that it is primarily a study of literary concepts[/b]. One question I would ask is: [b]If this is intended mainly as a literary study, why is it being conducted by the Trinitarian Online Theological School? Do they offer degrees in English and Literature?[/b]

I quote from the original email:
Quote:
A Journey through "The Shack" - In this class, we go through each chapter of the book in detail, and also study all the great themes of the book. If you wanted a more thorough reading of the book, or wanted to study the theological themes of the book in greater detail, then this is the course for you! [b]Many people on the forum have taken the course and told me how much it has helped them in their walk with Papa.[/b]


[b]There is no mention of studying literary devices here. They are promoting the book itself and it's contents, and how it has helped many in "their walk with Papa"[/b]. What I see here is a non-biblical source presenting itself as a valid resource to "help people in their walk" with what is supposed to be a fictional character "Papa". [b]The unspoken message they are giving the public here is that the fictional "Papa" is really God, and herein lies the crux of the matter.

There are many fictional or theological books written by men that have sought to help others in their understanding of God. How does "The Shack" differ from other accepted Christian literature? None of the others had the temerity to actually identify any of their fictional characters as God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They did not because they knew it was folly to try and capture the character of almighty and eternal God in a mere work of fiction (such a project is bound to fall short). The author of "The Shack" has no such fear of God. In fact, he actively promotes his fictional character as God.[/b]

[b]Do not be misled by their claims of faithfulness to scripture. There was a reason why God chose to make himself known to men as Jesus Christ, a Jewish male. His race, his gender, even his very words have a divine connection to prophecies in the Old Testament. God the Father himself is not a man or a woman. He is unseen, without definite form, but in his holy presence mountains tremble. However, it is clear in the Bible that God Almighty desires to be known as one of masculine gender (God the Father). Even Jesus refers to Him in this way. The Holy Spirit is to be known by us as an unseen yet powerful presence in our lives. This is how God revealed himself to us in the Bible. "The Shack" frivolously disregards much of scripture and presents an incarnation of the Holy Trinity that smacks of the same modern-day humanist philosophy that has slowly eroded the kingdom of God on earth today.[/b]

There are many other inconsistencies with scripture imbeded in "The Shack". To hear about some of these, please click here: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCl3NPrhrgE&feature=related]about The Shack[/url]

I see "The Shack" as one of the most vile acts of blasphemy I have ever heard of. It is very popular and the world has embraced it. I grieve for those who will be led down the wrong path by it.

To paraphrase you, Cambridge: [b]"I am saddened by those who cannot see the book for what it is." It is pure blasphemy.[/b]

In Christ's Love,
Leo

 2009/9/13 19:04Profile
Cambridge
Member



Joined: 2009/9/10
Posts: 5


 Re:

Leo:
you said, "They did not because they knew it was folly to try and capture the character of almighty and eternal God in a mere work of fiction (such a project is bound to fall short). The author of "The Shack" has no such fear of God. In fact, he actively promotes his fictional character as God.

Do not be misled by their claims of faithfulness to scripture."

You present a much more intimate knowledge of the inner workings of William P Young as well as the other writers of fiction when you say that they dared not write of such things because they knew it would be folly. I have no such knowledge of their motives and can not speak to theirs or to Mr Young's motive.
I agree that such a project will always fall short. It must. But that does not mean that we refrain from trying in our best to illustrate as well as possible truth. Whenever we try to illustrate the truth of the Trinity from our limited understanding and expression we will always fall short. It must. The simile can only be taken so far and no farther. When we try to push the analogy too far we will of course fall short. Again, it must. It is like this, but not actually this. That's all that a simile, parable, or allegory is, a means of illustrating a truth that will inevitably fall short of the truth.

I suppose that we must agree to disagree. That's not too uncommon in a world of this size. Whatever one might support or promote there will always be the other side of the coin. I just don't see things concerning The Shack in the same way that you do. I'm OK with that. In fact, I expect that others will disagree with myself from time to time.
I have found the positive side of The Shack where you have found the negative. However, this much I know, God was able to speak through a donkey, sometimes He even speaks through people including myself though I have to wonder how at times, but I'm just as sure that He can speak to people through The Shack as well.
The Shack is not perfect. The author wrote in the dedication, "This story was written for my children." Therefore it must be presented in a much simpler manner in order that it be understood by them. Of course it does not attempt to reach a level that would withstand the scrutiny of a much more learned individual. But in my opinion it does that well enough to be a treat for adults too, even learned ones. Even Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology gave it the proverbial thumbs up. Even so, whether he liked it or not, whether anyone likes it or not affects me not because I found much to be thankful for in it myself.

 2009/9/13 20:27Profile
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

Dear Cambridge,

Since you fail to see how blatantly "The Shack" has gone against scripture, then we must agree to disagree. I pray that others who read this thread will see what you cannot.

You said...

Quote:
[b]However, this much I know, God was able to speak through a donkey, sometimes He even speaks through people including myself though I have to wonder how at times...[/b]


[b]I do agree with you that God can speak to us in many ways.[/b] I would even go farther and say that God can and will speak to us even today. This is clear in the bible.

[b]But, whichever way God chooses to speak to us, we can be sure that his message will never contradict the Bible. "The Shack" blatantly contradicts scripture. The author calls it "artistic license". When "artistic license" is applied to the very Word of God, it is called heresy. When "artistic license" is applied to the very character of God, it is called blasphemy. "The Shack" does both. "The Shack" is not of God.[/b]

In Christ's Love,
Leo

 2009/9/13 20:47Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:


Leo_Grace wrote:

Quote:


[b]But, whichever way God chooses to speak to us, we can be sure that his message will never contradict the Bible. "The Shack" blatantly contradicts scripture. The author calls it "artistic license". When "artistic license" is applied to the very Word of God, it is called heresy. When "artistic license" is applied to the very character of God, it is called blasphemy. "The Shack" does both. "The Shack" is not of God.[/b]



Well, well said brother.


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/9/13 21:52Profile
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

[i]Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I'm pasting an article below that points out a few instances of heresy in the "The Shack". The author has strong feelings about this book, so I apologize if some become uncomfortable with the author's language, but the content of his article is well worth the read.

The book is becoming so popular that I fear many will be led astray. Please warn others of the dangers of this book.[/i]
----------------------------------

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Shack-Heresy At Its Finest

Below is a reprint of a book review I did of The Shack a few months ago. I am reposting here today because I've noticed several folks finding my blog by a Google search using the search terms "Review of the Shack". If this review causes one person to decide NOT to read the book, I will feel that I have done my job.

One time, while watching an NFL preview show on HBO, I saw a comedian named Wanda Sykes do a short monologue on one of the games for the upcoming weekend. She said, “I have never been to Cincinnati, and I don’t ever plan on going, so I can say this with complete boldness—the Bengal’s stink”. I suppose that I would have to say the same thing about the pile of tripe that is The Shack. I am never going to meet the author and I am never going to read the book. However, I feel totally comfortable saying that I regret calling The Shack garbage in my previous post where I reprinted a review of the book. That was not the right thing to call it. I was wrong to call it that.

Calling it garbage was being far too generous. If I have garbage in my house, I can wait until the next day or so to take it to the dump (we have no city trash collection service, go fig). If my children walked into the room where we keep the trash till we’re ready to take it to the dump I’d be like “Come on, now. Get out of there.” If I found a copy of The Shack in my home I would probably burn the place down. If my children got their hands on the wretched thing I’d get industrial strength hand cleaner to wash their hands with. You know, the kind mechanics use after they’ve worked in grease. I mean, the things this man writes in this book go so far beyond heresy that it’s hard to believe that he actually wrote them. I’m not saying he’s not a Christian, or that he’s a bad husband or father. Heck, as far as I know he may be the Michael Jordan of the bar-b-que grill and give 10 hours a day volunteering at the local charity. But his book makes the Purpose Drivel Life (that was not a misspelling, I meant for it to look like that) look like Matthew Henry’s Commentary. I am going to take just a few quotes from the book and give page numbers. If you can in good conscience read the book after you see what’s in it, well, just make sure you don’t leave your copy on my doorstep when you’re done. I’d rather not have to take a jackhammer to my front porch because it had been polluted with that filth.

On page 120, the character who is written to represent God, a woman called Papa, says “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Huh? Do what? God doesn’t need to punish people for their sin? Ok, I must really need new glasses because the Bible I read says in Psalm 1 that the wicked will not be able to stand in the judgment of Almighty God but instead will be blown around like chaff. In Matthew 7, Jesus says that some people who thought they were all religious will be told to depart from Him because He never knew them. Time and time again He mentions that those folks will be in eternal punishment “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. The book of Revelation spells it out even clearer. In chapter 20 verse 15, it says anyone who is not found with their names written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire. This fire, it says in that chapter, brings torment forever and ever. While it is true that God provided the perfect cure for sin on Calvary in the vicarious substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also true that God punishes sin. Therefore, what is written in The Shack contradicts clear biblical teaching. Regardless of any good anyone might find in there, reading the book is not worth it. I mean, who would look in a pile of cow manure to find a diamond. Boy, if I was going to do that, it would have to be a really big diamond.

Oh, but wait—there’s more. On page 182, the character meant to represent Jesus says “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions”. Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'”. Jesus then goes on to say “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu (the character who plays the Holy Spirit).” Here is the problem with these two quotes. The first might not be something that would make you go “Eek” upon first reading. I believe God can save anyone anywhere. You don’t have to be a part of the right group to be saved. Could God save a Mormon? No doubt if that Mormon confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). I mean, they’d need to get out of their LDS cult and all because you can’t be a Christian and stay there. That’s a rabbit trail for another sunny day. However, what the character doesn’t do is say that there is only one way to heaven. In fact, the next quote from the character playing Jesus says “I am the BEST way any human can relate” (emphasis mine) to God. “Best” isn’t exclusive folks. When I’m at work, I have quite a bit of control over how I do my work. There are times where, when I have finished an assignment, that my supervisor will review it and say “Let’s do this”. Sometimes I find that what I did was good but their way was better. There may be a way to do the task even better than what my supervisor had suggested and that way might be best. So, if Jesus is the BEST way that suggests by the very way that it was worded that there are other ways that are not as good but would still do the job. Saying Jesus is the BEST way is a far cry from saying He is the ONLY way, which is what the Bible teaches.

Oh, but lest you think I’m finished, check out this little nugget from the author. On page 99, the character who is supposed to be God says “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood”. Dear reader, God the Father did not take on flesh and dwell among us. That was God the Son-the Word of God (John 1:14). Nor did the third person of the Trinity take on flesh—I mean, He’s called the Holy Spirit, right? Further, Jesus says in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit. Again, what we see is the clear distinction between the heresy written in The Shack and the truth written in God’s word.

In the end, you and I have to make a choice. Where do we stand? Do we stand with what Scripture plainly teaches or do we allow ourselves to entertain thoughts that obviously contradict scripture. My prayer is that you will decide to fill your mind with things that edify you and build you up as a believer. The garbage that is between the covers of the Shack will do neither.

Posted by Joe Blackmon at 9:35 AM
Labels: Book reviews

 2009/9/14 22:40Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy