The Shack: My Review

Well, I have finally done it. I have read the "life-changing" book that everyone is raving about. Surprisingly, I have to say the book had some good in it, but don't think I would recommend it to anyone. I promised a review, so here it is. I will try not to be too long or wordy, and to make my ideas as brief as possible.

A brief synopsis: Mack, the main character, loses his youngest daughter, Missy, in a kidnapping by a man whose victims are never found, just proof that he has killed them. Proof of her death is found in an abandoned shack. A few years after the incident, Mack received a note in his mailbox from Someone called "Papa" that He wants to meet him in the shack.

First the bad. :-) God is represented by a poor-grammar speaking black woman named Elouisa. God is referred to interchangeably as He or She. In the Bible, God never takes on the form of a woman, and always refers to Himself in masculine pronouns, so I take issue with this. There are people who don't want to call God He, mainly brainless feminists, and there is even a gender-neutral Bible, but when God always refers to Himself as masculine, I don't think we should mess with that.

Mack is also surprised that God has a "questionable sense of humor" - the author's words. This comment is made after God says to Mack "don't stand there gawkin' with your mouth open like your pants are full!"

Next up: The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a somewhat flighty Asian woman named Sarayu. Again, this rubbed me the wrong way- no I am not anti-woman, but God has His reasons for portraying Himself as masculine, not feminine.

Jesus was portrayed surprisingly as male, and somewhat like you would expect Jesus to be like, though the author carried that a bit too far also: Rough type, country bumpkin, even clumsy - would the Son of God be clumsy? What really bothered me about the Jesus in the book, the author portrayed Him as 100% human while on earth, and even in the book as 100% human. In the book, Mack was told that Jesus had no power except what He drew from God - just like we would have had to do. I totally disagree - if Jesus is God, then He had His own power.

The human part was portrayed so strongly, that at one point, Jesus drops a bowl of food, breaks the bowl, and makes a mess. God and the Holy Spirit laugh uproariously and comment "you humans are so clumsy!"

Another thing I didn't agree with: God, as the black woman of course, had scars on His/Her wrists also. Not exactly Biblical. Jesus hung on the cross, God the Father did not.

The author gives the idea that since we are under grace, we don't have to obey the rules anymore, cited especially in reference to the 10 commandments.

In my opinion, and in my friend Kimmy's (we have been emailing back and forth now that we both have read it) - the author bashes the church, quite a bit, and even knocks the idea of being a Christian - does say afterward that we are to become children of God.

Another weird thing: Mack goes into a cave, and there is a woman names Sophia talks to him. Not sure what the author's deal is with God as a woman, but this woman is an aspect, or something along that line, of the Holy Spirit.

Outside of bad theology, there are a few occasions of cursing in the book, which you may agree with me or not, does not belong in a Christian book, especially when the main character is talking to God. A couple uses of the "d-word", and a use of "son of a b....".

Overall, I don't feel the book was that well-written, and was not the riveting page turner that it has been hailed as. I read it in a few settings, as opposed to one setting for a really good book of that size.

I did say I had some good to say about it. The author did come across pretty well of why God lets us suffer. He also brought out a new idea to me: that when we are struggling with issues of God loving us, and feeling He is out to hurt us, and things along that line, we are judging Him.

This book has raving review everywhere you go, with the exception of a few sane people. I would not buy this book. I would not recommend it to anyone. I definitely don't think anyone not firmly grounded in their theology and relationship with God should read it - it could confuse some people and lead them wrong.

If I could sum up in one idea why I don't like the book, it is that the author humanizes all 3 parts of the Trinity, and goes way to far in doing so. God is way beyond our understanding. He wouldn't have poor grammar, He wouldn't have questionable humor. I believe the author treated the whole idea and character of God with irreverence in the book, and I found it offensive.

So, is the book heresy, or life-changing? I have to say it leans all too much toward at least being Biblically and theologically incorrect. The idea of the book was good, and were several things done differently in the book, I would have loved it and highly recommended it. It is sad that so many Christians are raving about the book, and overlooking its many flaws.

Should A Christian Drink Alcoholic Beverages?

One of my best friends, who I love and admire very much, commented on my last post and sort of challenged me to a debate on Christians drinking alcoholic beverages. Note: My last post was to show that if the gun control activists are so gung-ho about ending deaths by guns that they should ban alcoholic beverages too, as they cause as many deaths. It was not a treatise on Christians and drinking :-). But this one will be. I welcome comments, agreeing or not - though if someone is just plain hateful, I will delete their comment. For the sake of ease, I will use "drink, or drinking" to denote drinking alcoholic beverages.

So, should Christians drink? I say no. My friend says yes, but I don't believe that she does, she just has no problem with Christians doing it.

Of course the first thing people bring up is Jesus turning the water to wine. I really don't have a good reply for that - I will be honest. I have read that wine back then wasn't quite like it is today, also, since this was "new wine" it is possible it was a lot closer to being grape juice than what we know of as wine today. Who knows. It was Jesus' first miracle, and I can't see Him doing something that was going to lead to a bunch of drunks and all that goes along with people being drunk. If they had run out of wine that would make people drunk, I'd say they had had enough, so I could be wrong, but what Jesus made makes more sense to be more like grape juice.

Next up: a little wine for the stomach's sake. We don't need that today. With modern medicine, a lot containing alcohol, we don't need to imbibe wine - we can take an alka selzter or something to help our stomach.

That is it for the Bible and alcohol, other than to quote Proverbs 20: 1: Wine is a mocker,Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
Calling wine a mocker doesn't sound to me like the Bible has a great opinion of it.

All it takes to make an alcoholic is one drink. None of us know whether we could become an alcoholic until we start down that road, but if we abstain, our chances are pretty good that we won't become one :-).

Look at what is associated with drinking: ruined marriages, child and wife abuse. Men who spend their paycheck for booze and lets their family go hungry. Not to speak of liver disease.

I think the average Christian who says its ok to drink would secretly have feelings otherwise if they saw their pastor sitting at the bar drinking it up with his buddies, or saw him walking out of the store with a big case of beer. Or better yet, having a can of it at the pulpit to sip at instead of water - why not, if it is ok to drink it, why not do it in church? If it is wrong to drink it at church, is it really ok to imbibe at all?

I think the world would be a better place if everyone, not just Christians, didn't drink alcoholic beverages, but that is never going to happen. The apostle Paul said something to the effect that all things are legal for him, but not all things are wise - something like that. Alcohol may fall into that category. Just because the Bible doesn't come out and say it is 100% wrong, doesn't mean it is right. Gambling falls into that category. The Bible really doesn't say anything about it, but we believe it is wrong.

In closing, I think a church that believes alcohol is wrong has the right idea, and we can all be more like Christ by avoiding something that could destroy us in the end.

Drunk Driving and Gun Control

A big controversy right now is lowering the legal drinking age. Why not? Put more drunk drivers out there. Sure, there will always be under aged drinkers, but if we lower it to 18, there will be all the more drinking-related accidents.

I have a solution to the whole thing. Outlaw drinking of alcoholic beverages. Period. Completely. Why not? That is what the liberal left is tryig to do with guns - outlaw them completely.

Here are a few statistics to support my idea:

In 2005, there were 12,352 homicides by guns. That's pretty bad.

But, in 2006, there were 16,005 people killed in drunk driving related accidents.

So why crack down on guns so much and let the drinking go? Sure, there were other deaths related to guns - suicides, accidental deaths, but there are also other deaths related to alcohol - liver disease, and other physical.

It is interesting that they want to lower the drinking age, and make more alcohol related deaths, but want to take guns away from everyone. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? Most of us face more danger of being involved in a drunk driving related accident than being shot.

This is kind of a rambling post, but it is something to think about. Instead of focusing on guns as a killer, how about turning equal rage and fighting against drinking alcoholic beverages. Sounds reasonable to me.

The 9 Commandments?

A few posts back, someone commented on one of my blogs. Among other things, they said the Bible does not say we can't work on Sunday. As someone who believes the opposite to be true, I'd like to explore this a bit, even if I only read over it. :-)

Commandment #4: 8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

If you tell most Christians it is wrong to work on Sunday, you will get a few different replies:
1) Well, Saturday really is the Sabbath, so if you are going to do things by the Bible, you should not work on Saturday.........

2) Jesus said in the New Testament that the Sabbath was made for man, and He excused His disciples for picking corn on the Sabbath..........

3) That was Old Testament, we don't have to obey that anymore

OK, #1: Christians started meeting on Sundays for worship after the resurrection of Jesus, so ever since then, we have done it on Sunday, but still, if someone is daring enough to challenge not working on Sunday by using this excuse, then why on earth don't they keep Saturday as the Sabbath - not work, etc on that day?

#2: Jesus excused breaking the Sabbath for emergencies - the ox falling in the ditch.

#3. My favorite - if we don't have to obey this commandment, then why obey the rest? Why bother printing it on marbleized statues, bookmarks, etc, if that one doesn't matter anymore. Why don't we just refer to them as the "9 commandments"? Really. Why not? If it doesn't matter?

It has always interested me that God spent so much time on this commandment. If you read over it, you will notice He commands for no one to do work - not you, your wife, your servants........He even mentions the animals. The rest of the commandments don't do that. You don't read: Thou shalt not covet. Not you, nor your wife, nor your donkey.............

Would God really spend so much time on the 4th commandment so we could throw it out a few thousand years later? I don't think so. It does appear He lightened up on some of the more strict things, like walking so far, and things like that, but I cannot see where He throws the commandment out the window, and tells us we can just obey the other 9, and not to bother with that one anymore.

There are jobs that need done on Sundays: medical, police, fire department. We definitely need them on Sundays in the imperfect & sinful world that we live in. But we do not need restaurants and Walmarts open. Or amusement parks, ball games. How anyone calling themself a Christian can go to some of those places, is beyond me. How is that keeping the Sabbath day holy?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: if everyone who called themselves Christians - the ones who go to church and all that - refrained from eating out on Sundays, buying groceries, etc, on Sunday, we probably wouldn't have so many businesses open on Sunday. Sadly, most of the people in your average restaurant on Sunday, have stopped there on their way home from church.

I've had people say, "well they are open anyway, so it isn't like I am making them work by going there". Hmm. If you follow that logic, then I may as well look at pornography, because they are going to do it anyway. I am not making them do it, and if I don't do it, they are still going to pose...........

I used to, unfortunately, hang out on a site intended for holiness people. It got overtaken by the bitter and angry people who used to believe like me, so I now satirically refer to the site as "theirholiness.com". This topic of keeping the Sabbath came up on there, and it was amazing how they would attack we who believe in keeping it. And some if it was plain idiocy.

One guy said if we aren't to do anything enjoyable on Sunday, then a lot of people who enjoy church are breaking the Sabbath. (How stupid!) Another said getting ready for church is breaking the Sabbath. And on and on they went. Faced with the idea that they were breaking the Sabbath, they had to somehow pull everyone down to their level, no matter how ridiculous the idea.

Life would be easier if I threw out the 4th commandment. But just because the majority of Christians are doing it, does that make it alright? Jesus asked if anyone would be found faithful when He returns. This may seem like a small issue to most Christians, but there isn't any black and white anymore. Nothing is wrong. You can go almost naked, and be a Christian. You can have immoral sexual relations with the opposite or the same sex, and be a Christian.

Where did it start? I think it started by throwing out what seemed like small things. The Sabbath. How we dress. What we watch and listen to.

We as Christians are supposed to be different. But if we look like the world, act like the world, hang out with the world, how are we different?

These days, I find myself wondering if I will ever find a full time job. The right job for me. I moved back here to be close to my family again, and don't want to have to move away again to find work, but it is discouraging. Sunday work is an issue. I am afraid my age is an issue. I look around and see people with terrific jobs, and wonder what I did wrong. Why does God not honor those who try to honor Him?

I really don't know the answers. I do know that the Bible says not to work on Sunday, and unless I go into the medical field, I am going to keep that commandment, as I do my best to keep the other nine. It is truly in our best interests to do as little unnecessary work and activities on Sunday. It is all about pleasing God, and I believe that would please Him. After all, He wrote it with His own hand.

Do Atheists Exist?

Headline today from MSNBC.COM: "Atheist Challenged In God We Trust Motto". The infamous Michael Newdow who tried to have the words "under God" removed from the pledge to our flag is at at again.

Congress first authorized a reference to God in 1864. The action followed a request by the director of the U.S. Mint, who wrote there should be a “distinct and unequivocal national recognition of the divine sovereignty” on the nation’s coins. Now we have a selfish moron wanting to do away with this. Should he succeed, God forbid, can you imagine what this would cost us as a nation?

Why is it that a small minority of people can cause so many problems. Hopefully he fails, but sometimes they succeed. It took one woman to cause the murder of innocent babies to be legalized. It took one woman to get prayer removed from schools.

I have had a though resurface over and over in regard to these so-called atheists. Is there really such a thing as a true atheist? An atheist declares that there is no God. But can you spend all your time and resources fighting against something that does not exist? Does it even make sense to do so?

I do not believe that there is life on other planets, whether it be Mars, or any other planet, known or unknown. But I don't care if other people believe that. It is their prerogative. I don't get angry when I hear of people who believe it. So why do atheists try so hard to remove all mention of a being who they supposedly do not believe exists? Why do the words "In God We Trust" bother them so much on our money? Do they really have to read it every time they handle money? If it bothers this Michael Newdow so much, why doesn't he keep all his money in the bank and use debit cards to avoid touching money?

There may be some genuine atheists out there somewhere, but my personal belief is they are quiet about it and aren't out there fighting against someone who doesn't exist. As for Michael Newdow, I wish him failure in his fights against God. He cannot be a true atheist. He is just a selfish grown up brat trying to get his own way. Who knows, he may be convicted by the very mention of the One he claims does not exist. Here is hoping that God will prevail, and this stupid lawsuit fails.

In closing, I will quote a bumper sticker I saw: "God does not believe in atheists".

A Parade, and Playing With Tractors

This past Saturday, was the Carnation Parade in Alliance, Ohio, nicknamed the "Carnation City" -long story, and I think President McKinley wearing a carnation in his lapel has something to do with it. They have a Carnation Festival, and it ends with the parade. My parents and I picked up my nieces and drove the 20-some miles up to Alliance.

The parade lasted about 1 1/2 hours, and was a very nice parade. My favorite float was one by a church. They had a Noah's Ark on it, and a couple of kids dressed up as Adam and Eve - evidently after the fall, as they were wearing clothes......... :-)

Dad has taken up quite the project. There is a small creek that runs through their property, separating the garden and swing set from the rest of the property. Over the years, it has been wearing away at the yard and bank more and more, til it looks like the beginnings of another Grand Canyon. OK, that was an exaggeration, but due to fears that the whole yard may disappear and fall into the widening gorge, Dad decided to get a couple of big pipes, and cover it over.

One of the neighbors has a backhoe and truck, so he was asked to do the work. He brought 9 truckloads of dirt and piled in the driveway to Mom's dismay - made getting in and out of the garage difficult. Day after day has gone by, and the guy still hasn't done the work, nor given a date, so yesterday, Dad dug out where the pipes were going. Today he got one of them in with his John Deere and was going to try to start moving dirt with the plow on tractor. The neighbor to the one side came over and loaned him his tractor which is pretty big and has a big scoop shovel on the front. As Dad dropped scoops of dirt, I was on the smaller tractor pushing the dirt around and trying to level it out. It was actually fun. :-)

The work isn't done yet, but a lot of it is. Mom and I think there is too much dirt, but Dad thinks he can use it all up. We will see. But at least the problem is being fixed, and you can walk over to the garden without using the bridge, and that is cool. :-) Some pictures below:


The massive dirt pile.





Another view of the dirt pile, along with the two pipes to be buried.









A couple pictures of the mess where the pipes are going to be. Take note of the caving bank to the right.






And lastly, a couple of pictures of the progress so far - pipes in place, and covered up. Still a lot of leveling to do.

The Shack Book Review on Insight

A good friend of mine sent me a link to a book review of The Shack from Chuck Swindoll's site. He didn't write the review, but I'd guess he approves of and agrees with it since it is on his site, insight.org. I still haven't read it, but may have a copy lined up. I copied and pasted the review - hope I am not breaking copyright laws. :-)



A Review of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity

by Glenn R. Kreider
Ranking consistently in the top ten at Amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, and other booksellers over the past couple of months, The Shack has clearly connected with a wide audience . . . and stirred up its fair share of controversy.
At the center of the book is the most difficult of all theological dilemmas: the goodness of God and the problem of evil. Where is God in the midst of pain and suffering? How can a good God allow the kinds of horrific evil that humans and other creatures experience? Why doesn’t He do something to stop it? Why does God seem so unconcerned about suffering and injustice? Intense and complex, these questions have almost universal appeal.
The Shack was written by a Christian father for his children, to help them understand his relationship with God. William P. Young explains that he never intended to write a book, but that this story became the means of communicating the real conversations he had with God and with friends and family over several years. Though the story is fictional, it seems pretty clear that Young’s claim that the conversations were “all real, all true”1 is a claim that the words of God found in this book are true. Now, any work which claims to record divine speech needs to be read carefully and critically. Claims to speak for God must be treated with utmost seriousness. Hence, the controversy.
The PlotIn this novel, the protagonist, Mackenzie Allen Phillips, receives an invitation from God to meet Him at a shack in the woods. It takes Mack a little while to decide to keep the appointment, but his curiosity and his pain eventually convince him to make the trip. When he arrives at the shack, it and its environment are transformed into an idyllic setting by the presence of God. Mack, too, undergoes a remarkable transformation, although that change takes longer to accomplish.
Four years earlier, Mack’s youngest daughter, Missy, had been kidnapped during a family outing. Her body had never been found, but the evidence pointed toward her murder at this abandoned shack in the Oregon wilderness at the hands of a serial pedophile. Mack had identified Missy’s bloody dress, found on the floor in front of the fireplace in the shack. As would be expected, these years had been difficult for Mack and the rest of the family, a period he describes as “The Great Sadness.” But, after spending a couple of days at the shack with God, Mack returns home a changed man. Through a series of conversations with God, he begins to understand how God’s love provides the basis of forgiveness and the power to change human lives. The transformative power of redemption through forgiveness is the theme of the book.
The Strengths of the BookI so wanted to like this book. It is an engaging story, even though it is very predictable. The horrific nightmare this family experienced is every parent’s worst fear and thus the story connects with the reader at a deep level. The author effectively uses word pictures, characterization, and plot development to probe deeply into the emotional recesses of the reader’s soul. The conversational tone draws the reader into the story, encouraging him or her to experience vicariously Mack’s spiritual transformation. The story stresses God’s love for His children, emphasizes human freedom as the cause of sin and evil, focuses on forgiveness and reconciliation as the solution to sin and evil, stresses the hope of eternal life in God’s presence in a new creation, and encourages the reader to interact with the human characters and God in a deeply meaningful way.
The Weaknesses of the BookBut I cannot recommend this book. The reason is simple: the author’s portrayal of God is confusing at best and untrue at worst. An engaging story is not enough. Emotional appeal is not enough. Many such books have been written, some even by Christians. Young is claiming that real conversations between himself and God are put into the mouths of Mack and God. Regardless of whether or not God continues to speak today—and Christians differ about that—what He says today can never contradict what He has said in the past. A book which purports to describe God must be accurate. A book which tells the story of God’s involvement in the world must be consistent with God’s revelation of Himself in His Word. This book does not measure up to God’s self-disclosure. A couple of examples will have to suffice.
Confusion about the TrinityThe first couple of chapters of the novel advance the plot to the pivotal point at which Mack arrives at the shack and meets with God. Throughout the book, the triune God appears in three human forms. His first encounter, at the front door of the shack, is with Papa, a “large beaming African American woman.”2 He then meets a “small, distinctively Asian woman,” named Sarayu, and a Middle Eastern laborer, who is obviously Jesus (83). Mack concludes that “this was a Trinity sort of thing” (87). Portraying the Trinity as three people, separate from one another, is hardly appropriate. God is not three separate people; that would be three gods—tritheism. Rather, He is one in essence yet three in person. The persons must be distinguished but never separated. Of course, the Trinity is a great mystery and beyond human comprehension. It is not, however, appropriate to portray God in a way which treats the doctrine of the Trinity as tritheism.
Confusion about ChristNot only is this novel’s portrayal of the Trinity inadequate, so is its portrayal of Christ. Christians confess that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, two natures in one person (called the “hypostatic union”), because this is the teaching of the Scriptures. In this union the integrity of each nature is preserved. The author’s view of Christ confuses the natures and undermines the uniqueness of the hypostatic union. In one conversation between Mack and Papa, Mack explains his belief that the miracles of Jesus are evidence of His deity. Papa corrects him, “No, it proves that Jesus is truly human” and continues,
Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. (99 - 100)
Mack is shocked to learn this, so he asks about Jesus’s healing of the blind. Papa explains:
He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone. . . .
Only as he rested in his relationship with me, and in our communion—our co-union—could he express my heart and will into any given circumstance. So, when you look at Jesus and it appears that he’s flying, he really is . . . flying. But what you are actually seeing is me; my life in him. That’s how he lives and acts as a true human, how every human is designed to live—out of my life. (100)
Several significant problems exist with this understanding of the incarnation. First, it is not true that Jesus “had no power within himself to heal anyone.” Jesus, as the God-man, did, and does, possess full and complete deity (Colossians 2:9). Young’s view sounds like kenotic Christology, that Christ gave up His deity when He became human. If He did not retain full deity on earth, He is not fully divine. Second, no other human is like Jesus in being fully divine. No other human has the power of deity as Jesus did. The incarnation of Jesus is one of a kind. And it certainly is not the case that all humans possess the life of God in them, as Papa’s statement implies.
ConclusionI first read this book because it was recommended to me by several people I know and trust. Most significantly, I read Eugene Peterson’s recommendation: “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!” (front cover). That is pretty high praise. I began reading with a great deal of optimism and enthusiasm. The story hooked me from the first couple of pages. Although my experience of suffering and pain is not to the same degree as Mack’s, I have many of the same questions he has. As I read this book, I waited with anticipation for the conversations with God to begin. As they did, I felt an increasing feeling of sadness in the depths of my being. This is not only not literarily comparable to the work of John Bunyan, it is even less worthy of theological comparison. This is a dangerous book. Its view of the Trinity is inadequate and its view of Christ is unorthodox. That is not good.
Dr. Glenn R. Kreider serves as a professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary where he received his Ph.D. in 2001.
Notes1. William P. Young, “Is the story of THE SHACK true . . . is Mack a ‘real’ person?” http://www.windrumors.com/30/is-the-story-of-the-shack-trueis-mack-a-real-person/ , accessed May 14, 2008.2. William P. Young, The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity (Los Angeles: Windblown Media, 2007), 82. Hereafter cited in text.
More Details from this Review of The ShackIs This a Real Story?More Confusion about the TrinityConfusion about God’s AttributesConfusion about SalvationOther Problems