Part 4 – What’s Wrong with The Shack
Posted by spdar on November 23, 2008
Read The Previous Articles
Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
The Shack – Part 4
This is my final write up on the shack and concludes all that I am wanting to convey regarding this book. I have had much feed back, some I can publish and have done so. Having read the book I think that there are many good aspects of it. It tackles some very difficult issues very well, it has, as I have outlined it has some major doctrinal errors in my opinion there are other areas that I believe that could easy be taken wrongly, but if you look hard enough you can see the deeper meaning if you look for it. For example it is very easy to read The Shack with a critical eye, looking for error, and believe that it is saying that everyone is forgiven.
(Page 192) Papa: “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world”. Mack: “the whole world? You mean those that believe in you, right?” Papa: ” The whole world Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way”.
It might appear that Papa (God) is saying that everyone is forgiven, but I am not convinced that is what is being said. God is saying that everything that needed to be done on his part to reconcile us to himself is done in Jesus. That is true! It then takes us, the sinner, to do our part and believe, repent and follow him. He has made away, our part is to take the opportunity offered to us!
I am keen not to go on a witch hunt here, but to simply name the theological errors that I saw as I read the book. I have not re-read the book looking for more errors in order to condemn it or the author. My goal was to simply review the book and determine if there was a basis for me being able to recommend the book or not. My answer is not. That Said, if you want to read it … then read it, but read it knowing that it is not theologically sound throughout.
So in concluding this next section of the book casued me to take a look at my electronic bibles to do a search and the results brought a smile to my face !
Just for Fun!
Papa: “My words are alive and dynamic-full of life and possibility; yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment. That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures. “
English Standard Version: 1 Occurrence
New King James Version: 5 Occurrences
New International Version: 13 Occurrences
New American Standard Bible: 4 Occurrences
The Message: 26 Occurrences
King James Version: 0 Occurrences
Clearly God only reads the King James Version !
spdar said
Thanks Anonymous
You are so right, and my intention is not to judge the author, or his intentions, simply the content of the book. I tried to convey that as well as the errors (as I see them) there was some great insight in there too. My worry is simply over the incorrect theology of certain aspects of the book, particularly the trinity, that I believe are incorrect.
Equally we must not take speaking truth and holding fast to the doctrine of the bible as being critical, judgmental or indeed religious. If we do we are just as likely to slip in to liberal theology which is the current state of a great deal of so called Christianity in the UK and throughput the Western world.
I don’t doubt that there are many people who, because of His grace, God has spoken to through the shack. God in his grace does use the imperfect to redeem those he loves (my sermons included), but this does not give us license to continue in error. David sinned with Bathsheba, committed adultery and then murdered her husband but God in his amazing grace went on to bless David and Jesus was a subsequent descendant of Solomon, David & Bathsheba’s next son. We cannot use Gods grace to justify error. We cannot use Gods grace to justify the error of adultery nor can we justify teaching or, as was the purpose of my review,endorse known error in books such as “The Shack”.
If, as you suggest, that there is theological error in a sermon(s) of mine then, if pointed out to me I would want to put that right either here on my blog, or publicly if the error was serious, as I am passionate about teaching and representing the bible accurately. I think it is very healthy to discuss and challenge our theology. It must always stand up to scrutiny otherwise we need to be humble enough to accept that our understanding was incorrect and from there we can continue to study and grow our understanding.
Thanks again for your comment and I take on board your points. I do not want to be critical or judgmental toward anyone, but I do want to hold up what I believe the bible teaches as truth. That is my hearts desire and the basis for my critique of The Shack.
I hope that helps
Blessings
Andy
Anonymous said
I enjoy reading your critiques, but don’t let a judgmental or religious spirit start to take hold. This book has touched millions of hearts! There may be some errors, but there is probably some error in every book or sermon you hear – maybe even yours.