I read with interest both an article and comments on a website concerning the Christian fiction bestseller, The Shack. It should come as no surprise that this book would stir up controversy within the Christian camp. The doctrinal police are out in full force on this one, making accusations that the author has an agenda that is nothing short of heresy. So they pan the book as a piece of Christian fiction laced with heretical doctrine.
Instead of considering the book as a whole, these critics have isolated statements that they point to as evidence of heretical doctrine being advanced by the author. If we would do with the Bible what these critics do with The Shack, we would come to the same conclusion - the Bible is filled with heresy. In fact, critics of the Bible continue to reject it as the word of God because of the contradictions and inconsistencies they find in it. Isn't it interesting that the Christian critics of The Shack denounce the very same methods of the Bible critics that they themselves use in critiquing The Shack?
However, what concerns me most about this is the attitude that seemsto emanate from these critics. The fact that great numbers of people have experienced emotional healing and freedom, being drawn closer to the Lord, doesn't really count for anything. All that matters is that their doctrine is violated (at least in their own eyes). It smacks of the same spirit of the religious leaders at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. They ignored the fact that people were being healed and set free because they perceived Jesus was violating their doctrine in delivering people out of bondage.
When doctrine takes precedence over people and their welfare, we have fallen from grace into the same jaded mindset as those who opposed Jesus in his day. This kind of hardened heart will not attract people to Jesus and his kingdom. On the contrary, they will be repulsed by the lack of love exhibited in their behalf.
It's not that we don't stand for what is truth, but it always has to be through love. Truth and love cannot be separated if we're to be ministers of wholeness and reconciliation. The truth of Scripture is that love covers a multitude of sins, it doesn't excoriate, as critics are so prone to do. Jesus modeled this blend of truth and love in the encounter with his critics and the woman taken in adultery. He didn't compromise truth, yet at the same time, his love protected and covered the woman from the destruction that her critics were about to bring on her through their doctrine.
6/20/2008 2:45 PM
Allen wrote:
Amen! I couldn't begin to tell of the extraordinary healing and insight that The Shack brought to our home, to us individually and to our marriage. It's about the "fruit" One tip. When recommending the book, don't provide any... ANY! "spoilers". I so appreciate that our friends would only say, "ya just gotta read it." So we decided to read it - out loud, to one another, like they were in the habit of doing with most of their reading. What an adventure! Two boxes of tissues. Reply to this
7/1/2008 7:51 AMLindsay wrote:
Carman, I chuckled to myself as I read your "Shack" post. As you know, I have some friends who are doctrine police and I recently gave one of them a copy of "The Shack" with the full knowledge that they would most likely apply their doctrinal acid test to it, but hoping that their heart might be touched nevertheless. True to form, I received an email from my friend calling into question the portrayal of Father in one particular segment of the story. Here was my response -
"I didn't read The Shack with an eye toward ascertaining Mr. Young's theological leanings. For me, The Shack is a story about a loving Father who takes the initiative to reveal Himself in a deeper way to someone in the midst of intense pain and suffering - a story that resonates with my spirit in light of what I've experienced over the past 3 years. I'm sure Mr. Young and I don't see eye to eye on every point of doctrine, but that's not a problem for me, and in no way detracts from the powerful impact the story has made on me. Simply put, Father has touched me through The Shack and enabled me to understand the depths of His love and compassion in a new way. That is a work of the Spirit through an imperfect book written by an imperfect man. The question for me is not whether I completely agree with Mr. Young's portrayal of the Godhead and His ways, but what Father wants to communicate to me about Himself through the story. For me, The Shack is life-giving and revelatory...."
I haven't received a response to my email yet, but I am having breakfast with my friend on Thursday so that we can, in his words, "discuss" The Shack. I'll be seasoning my eggs with pepper and my conversation with salt (full of grace) in accordance the Colossians 4:6 recipe. Should be fun. Reply to this
Lindsay, I love your response to your "doctrinal friend". I see a huge difference between you and your friend. It is described in 2 Corinthians 3, beginning with the end of verse 5 through verse 6: "Our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." According to what this portion of Scripture says, along with verse 7, your friend is involved with the ministry of death by the letter while you are involved with the ministry of life through the Spirit. It's the difference between the old and the new covenant. I'll be interested in hearing the results of your meeting with your friend.
7/1/2008 8:03 AMLindsay wrote:
Carman, I left out a word in the next to last sentence of my "Shack" comment. Should be "in accordance WITH the Colossians 4:6 recipe." Thanks so much for your email on Sunday. SO encouraging!!! Reply to this
Amen!
I couldn't begin to tell of the extraordinary healing and insight that The Shack brought to our home, to us individually and to our marriage.
It's about the "fruit"
One tip. When recommending the book, don't provide any... ANY! "spoilers". I so appreciate that our friends would only say, "ya just gotta read it." So we decided to read it - out loud, to one another, like they were in the habit of doing with most of their reading.
What an adventure!
Two boxes of tissues.
Reply to this
Carman, I chuckled to myself as I read your "Shack" post. As you know, I have some friends who are doctrine police and I recently gave one of them a copy of "The Shack" with the full knowledge that they would most likely apply their doctrinal acid test to it, but hoping that their heart might be touched nevertheless. True to form, I received an email from my friend calling into question the portrayal of Father in one particular segment of the story. Here was my response -
"I didn't read The Shack with an eye toward ascertaining Mr. Young's theological leanings. For me, The Shack is a story about a loving Father who takes the initiative to reveal Himself in a deeper way to someone in the midst of intense pain and suffering - a story that resonates with my spirit in light of what I've experienced over the past 3 years. I'm sure Mr. Young and I don't see eye to eye on every point of doctrine, but that's not a problem for me, and in no way detracts from the powerful impact the story has made on me. Simply put, Father has touched me through The Shack and enabled me to understand the depths of His love and compassion in a new way. That is a work of the Spirit through an imperfect book written by an imperfect man. The question for me is not whether I completely agree with Mr. Young's portrayal of the Godhead and His ways, but what Father wants to communicate to me about Himself through the story. For me, The Shack is life-giving and revelatory...."
I haven't received a response to my email yet, but I am having breakfast with my friend on Thursday so that we can, in his words, "discuss" The Shack. I'll be seasoning my eggs with pepper and my conversation with salt (full of grace) in accordance the Colossians 4:6 recipe. Should be fun.
Reply to this
Lindsay, I love your response to your "doctrinal friend". I see a huge difference between you and your friend. It is described in 2 Corinthians 3, beginning with the end of verse 5 through verse 6: "Our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." According to what this portion of Scripture says, along with verse 7, your friend is involved with the ministry of death by the letter while you are involved with the ministry of life through the Spirit. It's the difference between the old and the new covenant. I'll be interested in hearing the results of your meeting with your friend.
Reply to this
Carman, I left out a word in the next to last sentence of my "Shack" comment. Should be "in accordance WITH the Colossians 4:6 recipe." Thanks so much for your email on Sunday. SO encouraging!!!
Reply to this