|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "The Shack" - 2/26/2010 10:34:33 PM
|
|
|
Reform_Dave
Posts: 912
Joined: 6/14/2009
From: Where the mountains touch the sky.
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did I miss the point of 'heavy hitters'? Weren't you referring to someone with doctrinal authority and clout? Someone as you say 'with name recognition'? No, the 'heavy hitters' of Jesus' day were the Pharisees. They were the doctrinal authorities and they had clout. I did not miss the point at all. I heard it and I'm speaking to it.
Yes, you do misunderstand the point. Being strong in Biblical doctrine does not make one a pharisee, being a hypocrite does. Calling attention to heresy does not make one a Pharisee, calling the truth a lie does. As a matter of fact the unwarranted use of the word "Pharisee" is Pharisee-ism in reverse, just like when a person would call another a bigot where no bigotry exists purely to shut their point of view down.
_____________________________
If the Gospel were more clearly and faithfully preached, fewer would profess to believe it.- A.W. Pink
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 2/27/2010 10:29:26 AM
|
|
|
themoodyexperience
Posts: 2721
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
You say the book is comforting. I did not find the book in any way comforting. It is a book. I do not need the theology of The Shack. I do not need 'comfort' from a book such as The Shack. The Holy Spirit is my Comforter. But the book does address some things the church visible has misunderstood. And, if anything, it puts one on her knees for the church, striving in prayer. Comfort? That's not what the follower of Christ is after.
I would not call a fictional story heretical. Do I agree with all that the characters in Young's book say? Absolutely not. But I will defend his right to say them.
If you don't find it comforting and you don't need its theology why have you spent a whole thread defending it? Ultra-tolerance? Just because it has to do with the trinity or it challenges the church as you say? Just because some people are rightly questioning it? Please help me understand.
_____________________________
YouTube
Twitter
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 2/27/2010 11:10:26 AM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience
Great article. It's about time some heavy hitters starting taking this book to task for its awful theology.
Reform_Dave,
This is the original reference to heavy hitters. And here is my first response.
quote:
The heavy hitters in Jesus' day took Him to task for His 'awful' theology.
They saw Jesus and His disciples walking through the grainfields on the Sabbath, picking heads of grain and eating. The heavy hitters told Jesus this was wrong theology being lived out. And Jesus' 'awful' theological response?
Something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. Matthew 12:6-7
And when the heavy hitters brought to Jesus a woman who they had caught in the act of adultery, what was Jesus' response? In the Law, the doctrine of their day, stoning of the offender was the command. Did Jesus pick up a stone? Did He respond in the theologically correct way?
Not to their way of understanding. He didn't pick up a stone. He knelt down. He lowered Himself, putting Himself in the place of this lowly, sinful, undeserving and guilty woman. Dirt. Jesus would place Himself in the dirt rather than point the accusing finger at this woman.
There is something greater than the temple here.
We will have to disagree as to who understands what.
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 2/27/2010 3:45:45 PM
|
|
|
themoodyexperience
Posts: 2721
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Status: offline
|
Thanks, LiveLoved. I look forward to it.
And just for clarity's sake let me say I have nothing against Young. Like I said I read it and I can see why it is popular and why some people identify with it. The fact that it is so popular is what makes it 'dangerous'. People that wouldn't crack open a Bible will read The Shack because its a popular book.
So I don't have an axe to grind or anything. I find other heresies like Word of Faith, prosperity gospel, dominionism, false prophecies etc. equally as disturbing.
_____________________________
YouTube
Twitter
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 2/28/2010 11:11:21 PM
|
|
|
nuclear_sidewalk
Posts: 465
Joined: 6/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I've heard most of the speakers/bloggers/writers I listen to ripping this book to shreds.
Conversely, many members of my Young Adult small group have read and loved it. Heck, even my Mom said she enjoyed it. (although she mentioned it being only a story and not really getting any theology from it)
Mix those two, and I'm a bit concerned. I really don't think it should profoundly change someone's view of the Godhead, based on what I've heard. Beyond that, I fear what it means if they compare it to our generation's Pilgrim's Progress. So, I borrowed it from a friend and have purposed to read it. I want to be able to accurately address any theological issues in the book on the basis of actually having read it, rather than just second-hand. I trust my sources, but you know... People give you more credibility if you've bothered to read it yourself. I'd rather see how these things play out in the story, etc.
I'd be equally concerned if people started taking facts directly out of the Left Behind books. Whether one's pre or post-trib, we can all agree that most of its specificity was fictional and should be taken as such. The overall themes and movements of the judgments, etc, on the other hand, would be okay to hold as a loose view of the Tribulation. But, I digress... The Shack.
I'll try to report in later, after reading more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 4:17:00 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you don't find it comforting and you don't need its theology why have you spent a whole thread defending it? Ultra-tolerance? Just because it has to do with the trinity or it challenges the church as you say? Just because some people are rightly questioning it? Please help me understand.
themoodyexperience,
I'm sorry. . . I've been away for awhile. I didn't forget your question but didn't have 'the time' to devote to the answer. Plus, in all truthfulness, I weary of the argument. . . but I am NOT to weary of welldoing so I will share what I know. And I appreciated your further comments:
quote:
And just for clarity's sake let me say I have nothing against Young. Like I said I read it and I can see why it is popular and why some people identify with it. The fact that it is so popular is what makes it 'dangerous'. People that wouldn't crack open a Bible will read The Shack because its a popular book.
So I don't have an axe to grind or anything. I find other heresies like Word of Faith, prosperity gospel, dominionism, false prophecies etc. equally as disturbing.
These are some of my thoughts on why I think Young's book has been so controversial. I hope they help in answering your question.
The Lord desires an intimate, knowing relationship with us. John 17:3 says "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." And in describing that relationship, Jesus tells us, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him" and "if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him" (John 14:21,23).
Jesus' coming was the upclose, personal, intimate knowing relationship that God desires to have with mankind. Jesus lived that out in His relationship with the disciples. And He sent the Holy Spirit to live that out in us. Self disclosure and abode making are an intimacy that tears down every wall, breaking down the barriers that man erects to protect himself. Natural man does not want to be known. Men love darkness lest their deeds be exposed.
Jesus tipped the tables over on the moneychangers in the temple and He tips the tables we have erected in our own hearts if our desire is to know Him and be known by Him. He wants sole ownership of my heart so will leave none of the barriers intact .
That is a very threatening reality and it is this reality that Young confronts in his book. We love our 'selves'. And we fear being known. But Perfect Love casts out fear. So as we grow in our love for Jesus, He knows perfectly how to deal with all of our self protective, fearful ways to bring us to a more intimate knowledge of Himself. We no longer fear. All is revealed. And we are loved. And that is all that truly matters. Jesus knows our all and He loves us eternally. Nothing can change that. Nothing can separate us from Him.
The Shack also confronts man's desire for authority and power. Jesus' coming dismantled that as well but man has worked diligently to rebuild what they feared losing. What did Jesus say? He spoke of the Gentiles who "lord it over". That is natural man's desire. But what did Jesus teach and live? "But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant" Luke 22:26. Ouch. Jesus' leadership style was not a lording over others. But natural man does not understand this for it is spiritually discerned. He was Lord yet did not live lording. He laid down His life. And as Jesus taught us what leadership His way looks like, we can go to the words of Paul in Ephesians 5. Loving submission and servant leadership are Jesus' way. And when we submit to one another in love, we seek the highest good of the other and that means giving our 'selves' up. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her". Christ's love was so great that He wanted nothing more than to "sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless" Eph 5:26-27. We can't even imagine a love like that---yet it is what Christ did and what we are asked to live out as well.
"So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church" Eph 5:28-29.
Man's idea of authority is top down, ruling from above. Jesus' authority is laying down, coming under and lifting up. That kind of love, submission and authority is a radical departure from the thought of natural man.
How does natural man respond when his ideas are being challenged? Natural man kills what he finds threatening. Jesus was crucified by the men He challenged. That is natural man's way.
But God has a very different way. His Spirit seeks relationship. That is why I love the story of the offensive altar in Joshua 22. Man was set to go to war, to fight with their brothers because of what they 'thought' was wrongdoing. But instead of fighting, they went and spoke to their brothers and listened. And do you know the result? By going to their brothers and listening, they came to a new understanding of what their brothers had done. And instead of this altar being an offense, it became a memorial, a reminder to them and to us. Natural man would have gone to war. Spiritual man chose relationship, and the result was love.
God challenges and, yes, dismantles, our fleshly ways IF we let Him. He says go seek out the truth. Investigate thoroughly. Don't judge unrighteously. Seek truth.
The Shack is not God's word. The Shack is a man's testimony. It is a work of fiction that he has created as a result of his journey in knowing and being known by God. The Shack is not God's revelation of Himself. The Shack is Wm. Paul Young's revelation of the God he has come to know.
Is it exactly the way I see, know, or would describe God? Absolutely not. But I am listening to his story and I am thankful that he has shared it with others.
My knowing God comes from a personal, intimate relationship. Our fellowship is just as Jesus describes it in the gospel of John or in His revelation to John. He has made His abode in me. The door is open and He dines with me and discloses Himself to me.
The only barrier to my knowing is on my part. He desires to be known. "O righteous Father, although the world has not known Thee, yet I have known Thee; and these have known that Thou didst send Me; and I have made Thy name known to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith Thou didst love Me may be in them, and I in them" John 17:25-26. His desire. My reality.
Oh, how I love Jesus, that He would choose me for His abode. This is the God that Young is sharing with the readers of his book, a God who desires intimacy with those who are His. That is the greatest need of man's heart. We don't need more men who know about God. Those men are a dime a dozen and many are mere men. We need men (and I mean male & female) who KNOW God.
I do not use The Shack to teach others of Jesus. I teach the word of God. But if others desire to know Jesus because of what they learn or appreciate through reading Young's book, I say amen. And I will teach them of the Jesus I know and love and encourage them to be in the word of God and allow the word of God to do His work in them.
Thanks for listening. LL
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 4:49:30 PM
|
|
|
zoebob
Posts: 7123
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: land of limbo
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is a work of fiction that he has created as a result of his journey in knowing and being known by God. The Shack is not God's revelation of Himself. The Shack is Wm. Paul Young's revelation of the God he has come to know.
This is the root of the problem for those of us who are opposed to "The Shack" The god that Young is revealing and has come to know is not God of the universe.
_____________________________
L-R: DD1, Ellies DS2, DD2, Ellies DS1
L-R: Ellies DD1, Ellies DD2, DS, Ellies DS3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 5:50:11 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zoebob
This is the root of the problem for those of us who are opposed to "The Shack" The god that Young is revealing and has come to know is not God of the universe.
right. if fiction wonder why he tried to make the book so realistic as to be a representative of his views on God.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 7:29:24 PM
|
|
|
Reform_Dave
Posts: 912
Joined: 6/14/2009
From: Where the mountains touch the sky.
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Shack is not God's word. The Shack is a man's testimony. It is a work of fiction that he has created as a result of his journey in knowing and being known by God. The Shack is not God's revelation of Himself. The Shack is Wm. Paul Young's revelation of the God he has come to know.
If the god in "The Shack" is the god Young has come to know then he does not know the true God. Young has simply remade God in his own image.
_____________________________
If the Gospel were more clearly and faithfully preached, fewer would profess to believe it.- A.W. Pink
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 8:51:55 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
I would not choose to be the judge of Young. That is a frightening choice. The Spirit of Jesus is very much in this book. No, all of the details may not line up with the image you have. The Jesus Who came to earth did not line up with the image the people of His day had either.
Truth is beyond words on a page. It is spiritually discerned. The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them. This is the Jesus as presented by Young in The Shack. I'm sorry his representation does not meet your approval.
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 9:18:10 PM
|
|
|
themoodyexperience
Posts: 2721
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Status: offline
|
LL,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. I admire the amount of thought you put into it. And I actually agree with most of what you said and you made some good points. I just can't overlook the doctrinal problems in the book. You talk of the god that Young has come to know and I know that authors write from where they are coming from. Maybe further examination of the Scriptures would allow Young to come to know a God that would line up with the Word. I know that sounds elitist but the Bible is the final authority.
Like I said, I have no axe to grind against the man, and I pray for him as I would anyone. And The Shack will not be shaking the foundation of Christianity and the Word of Truth anytime soon. And I am not even trying to keep anyone from reading The Shack. But, I would pray that the Bible be next to The Shack when they read and any questions be referred to the Word of God.
_____________________________
YouTube
Twitter
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 9:54:55 PM
|
|
|
zoebob
Posts: 7123
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: land of limbo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Reform_Dave
quote:
The Shack is not God's word. The Shack is a man's testimony. It is a work of fiction that he has created as a result of his journey in knowing and being known by God. The Shack is not God's revelation of Himself. The Shack is Wm. Paul Young's revelation of the God he has come to know.
If the god in "The Shack" is the god Young has come to know then he does not know the true God. Young has simply remade God in his own image.
EXACTLY what I was trying to say.
_____________________________
L-R: DD1, Ellies DS2, DD2, Ellies DS1
L-R: Ellies DD1, Ellies DD2, DS, Ellies DS3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 10:19:51 PM
|
|
|
nuclear_sidewalk
Posts: 465
Joined: 6/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Update:
I'm picking the book up every few days for a lunch break read, and am about halfway through.
So far? The pre-shack parts of The Shack were honestly more entertaining. The actual shack parts are downright creepy, at times. I take theological issue with some of the ideas and themes he infers about the Father. I've yet to come across some of the more egregious issues that I've seen quoted elsewhere. (such as Jesus being "a" way, not "the")
I can't help but think a lot of people read this book and, instead of letting its message pass through the filter of scriptural authority, thought "Ohhhhhh, okay. So THAT's what's going on with God."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/9/2010 11:55:33 PM
|
|
|
Reform_Dave
Posts: 912
Joined: 6/14/2009
From: Where the mountains touch the sky.
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would not choose to be the judge of Young. That is a frightening choice. The Spirit of Jesus is very much in this book. No, all of the details may not line up with the image you have. The Jesus Who came to earth did not line up with the image the people of His day had either.
I am not judging his soul, just his idea of God, and if his idea of God is different than how God has revealed Himself then Young has judged himself. My image of God is exactly as He has revealed Himself in scripture, nothing added or subtracted. God refers to himself as a father, so to imagine Him as a mother, or any other thing, would be wrong.
quote:
I'm sorry his representation does not meet your approval.
I wouldn't worry about my approval, it is the Lords approval that matters. God is Holy Holy Holy, the only attribute He emphasizes to that degree, so it is unwise for people to think He is dispassionate about how He is portrayed.
_____________________________
If the Gospel were more clearly and faithfully preached, fewer would profess to believe it.- A.W. Pink
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/10/2010 12:24:36 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience
LL,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. I admire the amount of thought you put into it. And I actually agree with most of what you said and you made some good points. I just can't overlook the doctrinal problems in the book. You talk of the god that Young has come to know and I know that authors write from where they are coming from. Maybe further examination of the Scriptures would allow Young to come to know a God that would line up with the Word. I know that sounds elitist but the Bible is the final authority.
Like I said, I have no axe to grind against the man, and I pray for him as I would anyone. And The Shack will not be shaking the foundation of Christianity and the Word of Truth anytime soon. And I am not even trying to keep anyone from reading The Shack. But, I would pray that the Bible be next to The Shack when they read and any questions be referred to the Word of God.
I will continue our conversation, if you are willing, because I believe you are a listener and do desire to know and understand others. . . very much a Jesus quality. 
You say you 'cannot overlook the doctrinal problems in the book'. And I have to ask, what would Jesus do? Let's say the woman who anointed Jesus with the oil wrote a book of what she knew of Jesus. Do you think Jesus would find it difficult to overlook her doctrinal problems?
You see, I don't think this would be a struggle for Him at all. Nor is it a struggle for me. Jesus would love and accept this woman and her book and her knowing of Him right where she is. It is His kindness that leads us to further knowing---not judgment, not condemnation but loving acceptance.
Just this morning I was praying Psalm 32. How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! Yes, I am blessed indeed and I hear Jesus singing those songs of deliverance, love songs to me.
But the psalm continues with God speaking to me, "Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check, otherwise they will not come near to you." (v9)
The horse and the mule are compliant because of the bondage of bit and bridle. They need the restraint that is put upon them. Without that restraint, they would not serve.
But God desires those who love Him! He wants us to draw near to Him out of love.
Those doctrinal problems can be like the bit and bridle, restraints that hold and perhaps result in compliance, but they are not a part of a loving relationship borne out of free will, the choices we make. We can know the words of truth but without the Spirit of truth, the words are meaningless. O, they can bring an appearance of wisdom but they are not the real thing.
I hear men on Christian radio and from pulpits and from all manner of communication denouncing this and that, many including this book. But I do not hear Jesus from these men. And like Jesus, I cry you do not know what spirit you are of.
We can know all about God, about His word, and yet be carnal and not allow the life of Jesus to have His way in us. Right doctrine is powerless apart from the right spirit, the Holy Spirit, and, in fact, is often abused. Jesus called His yoke a kindly, easy, and pleasant yoke as opposed to the burdensome yoke the people of His time had put upon them.
The greatest need of man's heart is a relationship with Jesus. That is the emphasis of God's word. That is also the emphasis of Young's book. We do not need people who have right doctrine. We need people who know Jesus. He will lead and teach and guide us into all truth. The life and Spirit of Jesus IS the right doctrine and He is sufficient.
Am I making sense to you? Are you understanding what I am saying? I am appreciating this opportunity to dialogue with you about these things. LL
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/10/2010 1:22:51 PM
|
|
|
zoebob
Posts: 7123
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: land of limbo
Status: offline
|
quote:
You say you 'cannot overlook the doctrinal problems in the book'. And I have to ask, what would Jesus do? Let's say the woman who anointed Jesus with the oil wrote a book of what she knew of Jesus. Do you think Jesus would find it difficult to overlook her doctrinal problems?
This is where I disagree. Jesus would love her but He does not let false doctrine stand. He would NOT let someone walk around saying "This is God" and not correct it if they were wrong. Jesus was constantly correcting people who had wrong views of Him. He didn't let it stand and just pat them on the hand and say "That's OK you didn't know better."
_____________________________
L-R: DD1, Ellies DS2, DD2, Ellies DS1
L-R: Ellies DD1, Ellies DD2, DS, Ellies DS3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/10/2010 5:44:21 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zoebob
quote:
You say you 'cannot overlook the doctrinal problems in the book'. And I have to ask, what would Jesus do? Let's say the woman who anointed Jesus with the oil wrote a book of what she knew of Jesus. Do you think Jesus would find it difficult to overlook her doctrinal problems?
This is where I disagree. Jesus would love her but He does not let false doctrine stand. He would NOT let someone walk around saying "This is God" and not correct it if they were wrong. Jesus was constantly correcting people who had wrong views of Him. He didn't let it stand and just pat them on the hand and say "That's OK you didn't know better."
zoebob,
The world's measuring stick is cruelty. God's measuring stick is love.
The doctrinal experts of Jesus' day corrected, and corrected, and corrected others. Jesus condemned their actions (over and over and over again).
Young's book is not attempting or alluding to being God's revelation of Himself. It is a work of fiction but based on knowing God. Young is attempting to break down some of the fallacies of 'God' that have been a part of the church visible.
The church visible has made many errors. Any of us who have been a part of it for any amount of time, have to have experienced those errors. Young confronts some of these errors through his fictional story with the triune God as a character.
But the underlying God of his book is a God who longs for relationship, intimate relationship with man and that relationship is found only and solely in Jesus. Contrary to what others have said or how you may 'interpret' Young's words, Young's book clearly says this.
Carnal man condemns, rejects, and excludes. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Carnal man calls down fire from heaven to destroy men. Jesus went to the cross.
It is all about love, what love does and the spirit of God. When we look at words or listen with judgment in our hearts, we cannot hear what is being said or hear their heart.
I know because I struggle with all of this myself. I am reading a book right now that has a character (this is a true story) who is so lost. She was married and had affairs. She has had lesbian relationships. She is so selfish I want to puke. That's MY carnality thinking and speaking. And that is the spirit that condemns Young and his book.
The woman in that book is lost and desperate to know love, true love, the love that only Jesus has and can give to her. My carnality wants to bat her away, tell her how bad she is, etc. But Jesus rises up in me and casts down those carnal thoughts. He says, 'This woman needs me. She needs love. And it is kindness that will lead her to me.'
So I humbly put about my bat, my wrong thoughts, my unkindness and lack of love and ask Jesus to once again give me Himself, His Spirit reigning and ruling within. And He does and He will.
That is the need I am talking about. Young's book shows the world that the church perhaps has batted away, NOT loved, thought of and responded to men carnally, and that God, in contrast to what they have seen lived out, is love and desires an intimate love relationship with them.
And so I commend Young and his book. My desire is for others to come to know and love Jesus.
If a work of fiction about an experience with God moves others to want to know this God for themselves, God is able to lead and teach them and guide them into all truth. He will. He has and is doing it for me. He has and is doing it for you. He is not at all bothered by what Young has done. Nor should we. In fact we should be rejoicing that others may come to know Jesus because of this book. That's the Spirit of God. LL
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/10/2010 7:12:37 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4250
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved
quote:
ORIGINAL: zoebob
quote:
You say you 'cannot overlook the doctrinal problems in the book'. And I have to ask, what would Jesus do? Let's say the woman who anointed Jesus with the oil wrote a book of what she knew of Jesus. Do you think Jesus would find it difficult to overlook her doctrinal problems?
This is where I disagree. Jesus would love her but He does not let false doctrine stand. He would NOT let someone walk around saying "This is God" and not correct it if they were wrong. Jesus was constantly correcting people who had wrong views of Him. He didn't let it stand and just pat them on the hand and say "That's OK you didn't know better."
zoebob,
The world's measuring stick is cruelty. God's measuring stick is love.
The doctrinal experts of Jesus' day corrected, and corrected, and corrected others. Jesus condemned their actions (over and over and over again).
Actually, he didn't. He condemned their hypocrisy. Big difference.
quote:
Young's book is not attempting or alluding to being God's revelation of Himself. It is a work of fiction but based on knowing God. Young is attempting to break down some of the fallacies of 'God' that have been a part of the church visible.
I've actually heard Young say, from his own mouth, that he has asked and answered some very important questions in this book. That leads me to believe that, while called fiction, he believes what he wrote. And if he believes what he wrote, he believes very wrongly. (And the color and gender of "Papa" should be near the bottom of anyone's list of worries.) He should have written it for his kids and kept it to himself.
quote:
I know because I struggle with all of this myself. I am reading a book right now that has a character (this is a true story) who is so lost. She was married and had affairs. She has had lesbian relationships. She is so selfish I want to puke. That's MY carnality thinking and speaking. And that is the spirit that condemns Young and his book.
The woman in that book is lost and desperate to know love, true love, the love that only Jesus has and can give to her. My carnality wants to bat her away, tell her how bad she is, etc. But Jesus rises up in me and casts down those carnal thoughts. He says, 'This woman needs me. She needs love. And it is kindness that will lead her to me.'
And personally, it would never occur to me to bat someone away and tell them how bad they are.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/10/2010 7:31:13 PM
|
|
|
themoodyexperience
Posts: 2721
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Status: offline
|
Here's an interesting review of The Shack that focuses on the theme of universalism in the book (it's a .pdf file)
The Shack book review by James B. DeYoung
One of the tenants of universalism as stated in the review is that all people (past and present) even the devil and his angels will eventually be saved and be delivered from hell. This alone is a dangerous presumption (not to mention anti-biblical) and a grave deception that misleads many people to their detriment.
_____________________________
YouTube
Twitter
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/11/2010 11:50:58 AM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience
Here's an interesting review of The Shack that focuses on the theme of universalism in the book (it's a .pdf file)
The Shack book review by James B. DeYoung
One of the tenants of universalism as stated in the review is that all people (past and present) even the devil and his angels will eventually be saved and be delivered from hell. This alone is a dangerous presumption (not to mention anti-biblical) and a grave deception that misleads many people to their detriment.
When we take the words of God out of context or add to them or interpret them to mean something other than what God is saying, what do we call that???
You see, friend, I've heard these 'universalism' thoughts before. I did not hear them or read them in Young's book however. The Jesus character in Young's book clearly says that it is those who love Him (Jesus) who He will conform to His image and that He will seek and find all those who are His. That is not 'universalism' and I weary of others taking Young out of context, changing his words and thoughts and making them say something other than what they say.
When others do that to God's word, we call it unrighteous judgment. But when we do it (including pastors, leaders, teachers, some of whom have not even read Young's book but are just passing on what they have read or been told, secondhand information), it is OK? I say not. It is not OK.
I will look at the article you've mentioned, themoodyexperience. Will you look at one that offer as well? http://www.christinyou.net/
Then we can talk again. LL
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/11/2010 1:56:36 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved
You see, friend, I've heard these 'universalism' thoughts before. I did not hear them or read them in Young's book however.
as posted in this thread long ago before this dead thread got bumped is lots of discussion on this. you can go back and read how the book's editor went back multiple times to try to edit out young's univerisalism out of the book. the links are posted, it's a fact the shack was filled with universalism beliefs and now you just see the shadows of it. why do you put universalism in quotes, do you doubt people don't have those beliefs?
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/11/2010 2:12:17 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 3170
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: online
|
In reality, Young is only espousing the false beliefs of the Emergent church (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, etc.). Basically, Christianity as expressed for 2000 years is dead and here is the expression of Christianity as it should be, according to the humanistic beliefs put out by the Emergent church.
_____________________________
God uses our bad will to accomplish His good will. - R.C. Sproul
Blog|Facebook|Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 3/11/2010 2:18:01 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2111
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved
You see, friend, I've heard these 'universalism' thoughts before. I did not hear them or read them in Young's book however.
as posted in this thread long ago before this dead thread got bumped is lots of discussion on this. you can go back and read how the book's editor went back multiple times to try to edit out young's univerisalism out of the book. the links are posted, it's a fact the shack was filled with universalism beliefs and now you just see the shadows of it. why do you put universalism in quotes, do you doubt people don't have those beliefs?
I am going by what is IN the book, iwillfearnoevil, NOT by what others say might have been or could have been or shouldn't have been. I've been reading and participating in this thread all along so know what has been said before. I put universalism in quotes because it is a buzz word that people react to. And that is why people use it and try to influence others negatively regarding this book and this man.
It is judging by appearance when we use words like this, believing what others say or what we've heard or read rather than reading and listening and learning for ourselves. It is what people do and have done since the beginning of time. And Jesus says not to do it. He calls it unrighteous judgment.
We are to judge NOT by what the ear hears or the eye sees. That is a very different kind of judgment altogether and it is a very difficult concept to teach or learn because it is a spiritual knowing that is spiritually discerned. It cannot be learned as other knowledge is learned. No, it is revealed by God Himself.
So I choose not to label or use 'buzz' words that lead others to judgments that may or may not be right. I want people to draw close and listen and hear what another is saying. And not judge by what they are told or by what their ear hears or eye sees but to judge righteously. This is what Jesus tells us to do. And it is the judgment Jesus will give to us if we are His and draw close and listen.
I do not doubt there are people who hold all manner of beliefs other than my own. But I do not put those beliefs or judgments on them. We will be judged in the way we judge others.
_____________________________
Liveloved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
