The Shack: Top 10 Theologically Dead-On Excerpts
Don't get me wrong. There's plenty in The Shack that, in BW3's words, "needs to make a pit stop for some more theological tune ups."But then there are some moments where you just gotta stop and say, "Bullseye!"
Here are my top 10 said moments...
10. "...I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it."
9. "Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying ‘to be like Jesus’ ... I came to give you life, real life, my life. We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union on you."
8. "Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right."
7. "I’ve never taken control of your choices or forced you to do anything…To force my will on you is exactly what love does not do."
6. "Papa has never needed evil to accomplish His good purposes."
5. "Just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies."
4. "God, the servant....It is more truly God, my servant."
3. "The real underlying flaw in your life is that you don't think I am good. If you knew I was good and that everything-the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives-is all covered by my goodness, then while you might not always understand what I am doing, you would trust me. But you don't."
2. "Evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good, just as we use darkness to describe the absence of Light or death to describe the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have an actual existence. I am Light and I am Good. I am Love and there is no darkness in me. Light and Good actually exist. So, removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness. Declaring independence from me will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself . That is death because you have separated yourself form me: Life."
1. "When we see each other or are apart, there is expectancy of being together, of laughing and talking. That expectancy has no concrete definition; it is alive and dynamic and everything that emerges from our being together is a unique give shared by no one else. But what happens if I change that 'expectancy' to an 'expectation'-spoken or unspoken? Suddenly, law has entered into our relationship. You are now expected to perform in a way that meets my expectations. Our living friendship rapidly deteriorates into a dead thing with rules and requirements."
Thoughts?
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I just don't get the outrage against the shack. Theologically I think it accomplishes what it sets out to do, and it can begin a conversation that is beneficial. As a pastor I've recommended it because the story shows how God could be with you through tragedy and as a pastor that is one of the main crises of faith I see people go through.
Your #2 quote is a good example of the sound theology found within the book. It's an ancient understanding of evil - not one the author just came up with. I also really appreciated the understanding of judgment.
You kind of just need to take the book for what it is. And as your 10 moments show, there is plenty of good theological work done here.
I like them all except maybe #9 amd #10. Those require a bit more thought.
I think I read #9 more or less literally than it was meant. "Copy" is a strange word like that. The wording is confusing using both "copy" and "example" in the same sentence. It's difficult to extract the exact meaning. Or am I just looking too hard?
#10 is interesting. In some ways I agree. In others, I disagree. I certainly agree with the final sentence.
A few theologically correct (or partially correct) statements do not salvage The Shack. It is too full of false teaching. It does not take much falsehood to undermine the Truth. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" (Galatians 5:9, NASB).
A few theologically correct (or partially correct) statements do not salvage The Shack. It is too full of false teaching. It does not take much falsehood to undermine the Truth. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" (Galatians 5:9, NASB).
Jayson, as I stated above, I don't get the outrage. And now, here you are, a outraged person, or at least a person who didn't like the Shack, so I have an opportunity to learn.
I ask these out of curiosity and with sincerity.
Did you read the book? I'm not asking because I secretly think you didn't, I really am curious.
What specifically do you find most troubling? What specifically within the Shack do you see as a danger to the Truth?
Lastly, do you consider yourself a Calvinist per chance? I only ask the last question because if you are than I most likely differ from you theologically in some profound ways, which is fine, but it would also explain why we see this particular book differently (at least in great part).
"I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty." (Galatians 5:10, NRSV)
Think I'll step out of the way here and let the Mofast handle this one.
Oh, and just to keep the theme going...
"But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?" (Galatians 5:11, NRSV, baby!)
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Yes... I read the book. There were many very troubling things: God is pictured as weak and unwilling and/or unable to control His creation. There is no mention of sin and the need for redemption, only the need to "choose" between "independence" and "relationship." Clearly, the author believes all people are God's children, even though Jesus said that some are children of the devil. The depravity of man and his need for salvation is ignored. And on it goes. I do not have time to write a review right now, but there are plenty of them out there.
False teaching is dangerous to unbelievers and to new believers.
Yes, I am a "Calvinist," for lack of a better term. The more I have studied the Scriptures, the more I find it necessary to believe the doctrines of grace. Of course, "Calvinist" is just a label. The truth is that Paul was not a Calvinist; Calvin was a Paulist.
Yeah, Mofast. Whadya have to say about that!
Jayson, thanks for the answers. I am convinced that our differences probably stem from some fundamental theological presuppositions. The theological bent that is associated with the label "Calvinism" is just different than that of "Wesleyan-Arminianism" or of more Eastern Orthodox theological bents. And that's fine. I respect that. I understand why a Calvinist would think the book was heresy.
If you'll indulge me, a few more questions. If Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, the full revelation of God, God with us and all that, are you troubled by the weakness of God displayed on the cross? Or even the weakness and frailty of Jesus being human altogether?
You said there was no mention of sin. Raffi quoted the book in item #10 and the word sin occurs twice. Or was it that there was no mention of "sin and the need for redemption" - the two together? I mean, I guess I could understand you saying that you didn't agree with Young's portrayal of sin, but I'm not sure if it's fair to say that the depravity of man is ignored in a story that involves the rape and murder of a young girl. What are your thoughts on the idea of evil as "privatio boni?"
Finally, I don't mean to be snarky when I point this out, but John Calvin was a Christian, not a Paulist. I point that out not because I think that was a slight oversight I could pounce upon, but rather I think it accurately reflects a deficiency within the contemporary stream of "Calvinistic" thought. In other words, it is interesting that you would choose to define Calvin as a Paulist, and Paul not a Calvinist, and neither as a Christian. I know you believe they are Christians, but this is rather like a Freudian slip (let the reader understand).
"I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12, NRSV)
Raffi, you said emerging in your post. You heretic! ;-P
Seriously, for #2 I think killed me for most of my life. Instead of discovering a God who loved me. I focused on holding back the evil that was destroying my life. But as the quote says, I was focusing on the problem not the solution.
Jayson, I don't know why I found it funny but you were concerned that there was no mention of sin when the first quote mentioned sin.
OK, Jayson. Ball's in your court. You are free to respond as you choose. "For you were called to freedom...only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence..."
And yes, Jonathan. I don't think "...and everything that missionals from our being together" would've sounded right.
And #2 killed me for quite a while, too. It's pretty soul-destroying, huh?
I will address the questions briefly.
When I said there was no mention of sin, I meant, and I know you understand this, that the book did not present sin as the vile issue that it is. Sin separates from God. It condemns. It brings judgment from God. It is treated rather lightly in The Shack. As I recall, the mention of sin by the god of the shack is in response to a question from Mack, not an issue god himself thought was important. The idea that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” is lost in the idea that Jesus came into the world to be human and establish touchy-feely relationships with other humans. That is shallow. Where is redemption in that?
Relative to Paul and Calvin – of course I know they were both Christians. My statement basically referred to the fact that some people actually claim Paul was a “Calvinist,” which is as absurd as saying, as some do, that John the Baptist carried a King James Bible. Obviously, Paul never read the writings of Calvin, but just as obviously, Calvin read the writings of Paul, and Calvin’s basic doctrines are in line with the Scriptures. The “theological bent,” as you put it, that is associated with Calvinism recognizes that God, not man, is in control. The god of the shack is not the God of the Bible. The god of the shack is a weakling who wouldn’t even think to interfere in the affairs of men. The God of the Bible has and will continue to do exactly that. Man is the weakling.
There was no weakness of God displayed on the cross. God did not die. Jesus willingly died a perfect, sinless human death in the body that had been prepared for that purpose. He never ceased to be God, and while he laid aside His glory, He never laid aside his power or His Deity. He walked this earth as a human, yet a sinless human, both able not to sin and not able to sin. Weakness? Absolutely not! He retained absolute power to lay down His life and to take it back again, and contrary to The Shack, He did use His power as God to do miracles. That is not weakness – it is great power and authority. Jesus was never forced by any man to do anything. He did it all willingly to accomplish the will of His Father.
The reason I say the depravity of man is ignored is that the author minimized it. The man who raped and murdered Missy is pictured as one of God’s children. We know that only those who come to Christ are God’s children. The author ignores the fact that man’s depravity prevents his making a “choice” to have a “relationship” with God unless the grace of God intervenes. I know, that’s my Calvinist “bent,” but I believe it is what the Scripture teaches.
I cannot accept the idea that evil is merely the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light. The absence of good is certainly part of evil, but the Scriptures present evil beings and evil men in such a way as to cause me to believe that evil is an entity unto itself – more than the absence of good – actually the very opposite of good. A man who does not do “good” in this world is not necessarily a bank robber or a murderer. Robbing a bank, committing murder, etc. – those acts are more than they absence of doing charitable things. They are overt acts. In the same way, all men are not just failing to do good – because the depravity of man prevents it. All men are overtly sinners and in rebellion against God, and that can only be dealt with by God’s choice to deal with the sinner on the basis of His grace.
Unlike these Top Ten Excerpts, Jayson's last responses truly are "Theologically Dead-On.
David van Horn
Jayson, you said,
"The author ignores the fact that man’s depravity prevents his making a “choice” to have a “relationship” with God unless the grace of God intervenes. I know, that’s my Calvinist “bent,” but I believe it is what the Scripture teaches."
So it is "fact" or is it a choice you have made to believe?
I guess I just chose to see the author's use of a serial killer enough evidence to the brokenness in our own humanity. Don't need more than that.
And who are we to suggest that any human being is NOT a child of God. Example, Jeffrey Dalhmer became a Christian. I
I think what the author was trying to communicate was that from God's perspective He sees us as His creation, regardless of our destructiveness. What we do does not define how he sees us. The story was about discovering and living into that.
Much love to you on your journey towards discovering truth.
A question to Jonathan and Mofast...
I think I can safely say that both your worldviews, your interpretative lenses, once looked very much like Jayson's (and David's). I think I can also safely say that your shift from that lens to the ones you look through today did not happen by an individual examination of the individual doctrines, scripture verses, etc., but by a wholesale "different way of looking at things" that incorporated theology, scriptural interpretation, etc.
Could you perhaps speak with Jayson to the issue of that presumed "meta-shift"? I think that might foster a more fruitful conversation, perhaps the only one that both sides can meaningfully engage in at this point of our very different journeys.
For me, for example, the shift occurred when a gargantuan event in my life that I knew was "of God" simply did not fit within the categories of my Calvinistic, systematic understanding of Christianity. As I began to explore life, history, science, theology, etc., within a new lens, into which both orthodox Christian doctrine and my revelatory life events all fit neatly and beautifully, and continue to so do...
Well, I can go on and on. I'd love to hear from you guys...
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Ok... If you want to pick apart every word, I will reword my statement, as follows:
"The author ignores the fact that man’s depravity prevents his making a “choice” to have a “relationship” with God unless the grace of God intervenes. I know, you will say that’s my Calvinist 'bent,' but it is what the Scripture teaches."
If someone says, "That's just your opinion," I will beg to differ. Everyone has an opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter. Nor does yours. Nor does anyone else's. What matters is what God has said.
I will not say that anyone in particular is not a child of God. Only He knows for sure. However, I will say that there are many who are not children of God and who will never become children of God. The Scriptures make that very clear. Jesus Himself identified some of the religious leaders as children of the devil.
I have to also say that our experiences do not form the basis of truth. We all have gone through many things in our lives, but regardless of those things, truth does not change, and our experiences should not determine our theology. God's Word is the only reliable basis we have, and nothing else matters.
I guess I'll have to take over, seeing as Mofast is probably on one of his infamous 17-hour naps.
Jayson, I try not to argue points that boil down really meta-level views, since that is so often an exercise in futility. Meta-level views change not by argument, but by experiences of extreme love.
But I will say this...our experiences are so central a variable of what we see as true and not true that I really would have a hard time communicating with someone who didn't see that. To go no farther than your favorite book, and mine, Paul's entire worldview was changed, in the direction of the truth, after his experiential encounter with the living Christ.
God's truth is the only truth, yes. But our fallen ability to grasp it is, well, fallen. It is imperfect. Please, please, brother, try ever so hard to avoid the sin of thinking that your faith tradition's interpretation of God's word is the truth. It is not. God's word is the truth.
Calvin didn't die for my sins. Dare I say, Paul didn't die for my sins.
Jesus died for my sins. And his truth was never conveyed as A+B=C. It was conveyed by a whole life lived; a death on a cross; and a glorious resurrection.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
There are no more experiences today like the experience Paul had on the road to Damascus. Unlike that time, God's Word is complete today, so any and all experiences we may have are irrelevant to our understanding of truth.
Jayson,
Sorry, brother. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think God is forever revealing Himself. How could He do otherwise? And I think that position is far, far too convenient. We know that X, Y and Z, and, oh, by the way, Z="no further data is allowed to challenge X and Y." Like I said, far too convenient, and far too unlike the God I see revealed in Jesus Christ.
Meta-level stuff, brother. But I'm glad we talked.
Grace and Peace, Jayson. I'll pray for you. Hope you'll return the favor.
Raffi
Raffi,
In thinking about your question earlier…
I think I may have either made too subtle a point or I was inadequate in conveying my point earlier in regards to the remark on John Calvin being a Paulist. I’ll start there because I think it launches into the meta-level views of which you rightly speak. My point was not to pick apart something where I thought Jayson forgot a basic point (e.g. John Calvin was Christian – as I said, I knew Jayson thought that), but rather to point out that it is significant that Jayson’s first and then subsequent clarifying descriptions of John Calvin were that he was Pauline, rather than as “Christian” in thought. I have noticed this in conversations with those within the Calvinist theological realm – the Bible begins in Romans and centers around chapters 7-10 (roughly), throw in Ephesians 1 and a few other spots and you have the foundation for the epistemological and hermeneutical lens by which all of scripture is processed and understood. In this sense, it would be proper to note that a Calvinist’s conception of Christ would be that Christ was a “Paulist” as well – although they would certainly not say this. And note, it’s not all of Paul, but a very specific sampling of Paul which ignores the flow of the argument within the book of Romans itself (in regards to Israel and the like) that forms the foundation for interpreting all of scripture. I have strong beliefs and convictions that this is neither appropriate nor responsible interpretation. I have a very high view of Scripture, and believe that it testifies to Jesus Christ. I have a very high view of revelation and believe that the scriptures point to the person of Jesus Christ – similar to the story of the disciples on the way to Emmaus in Luke 24. If God is communicated to us through Jesus Christ and revealed scripture testifies to this, then we take our cues on the character of God primarily from the person of Jesus as that is our fullest revelation of who God is and what he is about.
Some of my primary concerns and reasons for being Wesleyan-Arminian theologically, besides my high view of the entirety of Scripture and a high Christology, are my beliefs in God’s sovereignty, holiness, and goodness. The character of God is crucial in this divide, and the more I hear Calvinists explain Calvinism, the more blasphemous it sounds. Just a sampling (I could ramble on interminably), but being that God is Holy and other than creation, as well as sovereign and good, I am disturbed by theology that describes God in ways that sound like human despots and understandings of God’s power and sovereignty that are based upon human behaviors and abuses of power and control. One may argue (as often happens) “Well that’s biblical” to which I would respond that the hermeneutic lens that views power as the absolute ability to manifest a spontaneous will upon a creation is an understanding of power and freedom that is not consistent with the scriptures or earlier Christian thought. I would refer you to the writings of David Bentley Hart for a better understanding of this. God’s perfect power and sovereignty would be better defined as God’s ability to always act in a way perfectly consistent with his character. The character trait I am most concerned with here is goodness (but also holiness in that “holy” at least in part describes God’s “otherness” from fallen humanity). It is a troubling claim of the Calvinist that God willed the existence of evil because then God would be neither free nor sovereign. In fact, the God I hear Calvinists describe, who from the foundations of the earth determines who will receive grace and who will receive grace in the form of hellfire, the God who is foremost concerned with glory (which is described in a rather human sense – like getting credit, people being impressed with you, and so on) seems more like a human writ large than a holy and transcendent God. I am personally challenged by the fact that God chose to show power through weakness in Jesus Christ – for example 2 Corinthians 13:4, Philippians 2, John 13, and the Passion, however that points to an understanding and manifestation of power that is foreign to us as humans. I guess you could say that I also firmly hold to the concept of the depravity of man.
The main question that I have and wrestle with is how my understanding of and approach towards scripture is shaped by the person of Jesus Christ. If I were to only preach Christ crucified, than what is that saying about the person and character of God? It is a different meta-view and one that won’t be bridged here. In closing though I want to say that I was really asking Jayson those questions to better understand his thoughts. I resent constantly being talked down to by Calvinists who make claims implying that Wesleyan Arminians a. don’t base our understanding of God upon scripture (by implying or saying we “interpret”, they state it as it is) b. don’t believe in the depravity of humanity c. don’t take evil and sin seriously d. don’t have a thorough doctrine of grace. We disagree and that’s fine. I truly hope to meet in heaven and it won’t matter that I was right. But the idea that Calvinist = “biblical” and Arminian = wishy washy philosophical is less than intellectually honest.
Raffi,
I have been following this string of comments, with interest, ever since you posted your link on my blog. It is not my intention to perpetuate or continue in this volley of debate. Nor do I mean to be mean-spirited or disrespectful so please don’t take these comments the wrong way but I am having a lot of trouble embracing your ideology.
You must know, if you took some time to peruse my blogsite, that I am a fundamentalist Christian and therefore hold to a high view of the authority and reliability of Scripture as the only guide for faith and practice.
So I was particularly troubled by something you said in one of your latest arguments in this string. You implied that, in the hypothetical algebraic equation, X+Y=Z, to accept the truth of Z is to deny the possibility of data that might challenge the quantities of X and Y.
This reminds me of something that was introduced into elementary arithmetic curricula in the fifties. It was called “The New Math.” You see, I was taught that 2+2=4. Math starts with the premise that there are absolute truths and that was reliable. We all knew that 2=2. Then, the very next year, my younger sister was taught that 2+2=4 unless it doesn’t. The quantity, 2 could mean something else depending on the base system the 2 was in. Do you understand that? I don’t! And today my 60 year old sister (who might not really be 60 depending on how you feel about the quantity “60”) still doesn’t know how to add. To simplify my point; if we can’t rely on absolute truth (i.e. the value of 2) we can never know the absolute value of 2+2. Any answer then is right depending on the value you place on 2.
Fundamentalists must start with and rely on an absolute, authoritative, and objective understanding that truth is not negotiable; the definition of truth is “that which is true.” I am not suggesting that we fundies always get it right; I am saying that Truth is always True. That’s why this ongoing debate in this comment stream seems ludicrous. By our understanding of truth, anything that contradicts Scripture must be wrong so, from our point of view, you are wrong.
But from you viewpoint, truth is moldable and negotiable. It sounds, to me, like you are suggesting that truth can be developed or changed by experiences, new revelations, feelings, or even conversations. And, if that is your viewpoint, then it seems to me illogical for you to challenge or argue with those of us who hold a high view of the authority of Scripture because our understanding of truth must be as valid as yours. You are right but so is Jayson, and so am I. 2+2can equal 5 if I feel like it. We all get to be right; nobody is wrong.
“The Gospel is neither a discussion nor a debate. It is an announcement.” (Paul S. Rees)
Grace and Truth
Ralph M. Petersen
Raffi, as much as I appreciate your request I think it is better left unsaid.
From my perspective Jayson is engaged, happy and perfectly fine with his own understanding of the faith, and I wouldn't preclude or want to change that. Much love to him.
I would say that my shift occurred because I reached a point where none of those things were true any more for me.
Jonathan,
I get it.
Mofast,
Preaching to the choir, brother. But wow, what a sermon! I hear you on the Calvinist-Arminian name-calling, and I'm sure our Calvinist brethren don't appreciate Arminian caricatures of Calvinists. I think that's why we gotta get beyond the C-A polarization, but that may be for the next generation.
Ralph,
Thanks for jumping in (took you long enough!) I guess we're on different meta-levels as well, so tit-for-tat's not gonna get us anywhere. I guess the only thing I'd say is don't believe everything you're told about us non-fundies. Most of us (and certainly those participating in this string) really do hold to a much, much higher view of truth (and Truth) than our detractors might lead you to believe.
I, for one, have such a respect for the truth that I wouldn't condescend to imply that it was equivalent to what I said/believed about it. I have and will spend a lifetime striving to get as near as possible to it. I will never own it. I will never possess it.
I cannot. I love it too much.
And, just as a point of clarification, I wasn't implying that "to accept the truth of Z is to deny the possibility of data that might challenge the quantities of X and Y." I trust you weren't setting up a straw man to knock over, like so many do with the "Oh, they just believe that anything might be true" mischaracterization. I was simply disagreeing with specific "Z," namely, Z="God stopped revealing Himself at time X," for which I find no support in the grand narrative of Scripture.
By the way, I never got the New Math either. Sometimes I wish God was as easy to calculate as elementary arithmetic.
He ain't. And, most of the time, I'm glad He ain't.
Grace and Peace (and Truth),
Raffi
I have a question in regard to the discussion taking place in your comment section.
I have read that both sides of this discussion have their opinions and understandings of the scripture. God said this and we will... The Word states this so...
I have come to understand that much of what I was taught about the Bible was someone else's opinion and wasn't necessarily the correct translation. (By the way, Oklahoma Baptist University)
So in regard to some of the dogmatic suppositions - what if your translation is off? I am curious to know if anyone has had an opinion about something the Word stated and then changed that opinion later in life? Did God change or did our understanding? If it's possible to change our opinion then how many other things could we be wrong about?
Raffi:
No one has commented for quite some time, but after reading through the comments again, I had to come back one more time. You said, "Paul's entire worldview was changed, in the direction of the truth, after his experiential encounter with the living Christ." Absolutely, that is true. Of course, no parallel experience can be had today, and no such experience is necessary, because we have the complete Word of God.
However, the point I wish to make is that this event is one of the very strong Biblical supports (among many others) for what is commonly called "Calvinism." Our Lord did not give an "invitation" and ask which of the men on that road would like to respond and become an apostle. He simply grabbed the one He wanted - his chosen vessel - Saul of Tarsus. Paul was not saved because he was "seeking" God. He was saved against his will - in spite of His will - totally by the sovereign grace of God. There is simply too much Biblical support for this truth to ignore it. No man has ever chosen to come to Christ of his own "free will" (an oxymoron like "square circle"). Anyone who comes to Christ does so in spite of his will that is not free at all, but rather that is in bondage to sin and Satan. The Lord by His grace overwhelms our will, because our will is incapable of choosing God. He gets all the glory. Man gets the blessing.
Following is a link to my review of "The Shack." This article was first posted on "Well-Meaning Gentlemen with Different Ideas," resulting in your posting a link to "The Shack: Top 10 Theologically Dead-On Excerpts."
Here is the link: http://buffalonoise.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-of-shack.html