BOOKS: The Shack by William B. Young

[chevarra]

It seems to me that everyone is not reading the deeper meaning of the book and just focusing on the ‘literal’ aspect of it ,the words. I think that it teaches many excellent virtues and that the overall message of the book is well intended.

While it seems to contradict Scripture in its literal sense, I think that it somewhat reinforces it otherwise. Of course, no one should take its word over the Bible, but rather that dismissing it after the first glance, read it. And reread the parts that make you question its adherence to Scripture. Then try to view them in a brighter light and search for a deeper meaning rather than the literal message.

I apologize that I no longer have my copy and cannot provide quotes. The previous quotes that have been mentioned seem to me to be taken out of context and should be read with the entire conversation between characters intact for a better picture.

I also enjoy the representation of God in His three forms, that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While the Father and the Holy Spirit do take on the form of women in the novel, I think people should notice the relationship that God in these two forms has with the main character rather than their gender.

That is all for now. Sleep is taking over. God Bless and peace be with you.

 

[yellowbird]

I just finished reading another book where God was portrayed as a woman. It was Saving Faith by Jodi Picout. In it, a young child starts having visions of God, who is a female.

God portrayed as a woman - I think it’s just one more way that Satan tries to distort and confuse.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

While it seems to contradict Scripture in its literal sense, I think that it somewhat reinforces it otherwise.

So then, you believe that the Bible teaches polytheism and universalism?

Of course, no one should take its word over the Bible, but rather that dismissing it after the first glance, read it. And reread the parts that make you question its adherence to Scripture. Then try to view them in a brighter light and search for a deeper meaning rather than the literal message.

But if something is Unbiblical, who cares what it’s “deeper message” is?

I apologize that I no longer have my copy and cannot provide quotes. The previous quotes that have been mentioned seem to me to be taken out of context and should be read with the entire conversation between characters intact for a better picture.

If you’re going to accuse us of taking their quotes out of context, then it’s up to you to demonstrate how we’ve taken them out of context and what the correct context is.

 

[chevarra]

So then, you believe that the Bible teaches polytheism and universalism?

But if something is Unbiblical, who cares what it’s “deeper message” is?

If you’re going to accuse us of taking their quotes out of context, then it’s up to you to demonstrate how we’ve taken them out of context and what the correct context is.

To your first question, no I do not believe that the Bible teaches polytheism and I do not think that the book does either. It simply shows the three aspects(for lack of a better word) of God: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The book never states that they are three separate gods. It portrays them all as being the same God and not separate. As for universalism, I do not know much about it other than its basic definition so I will not comment.

For you second question, I never said that they were Unbiblical only that they may seem so at first glance. Also, I think that the author took the liberty of using parables, thus my asking you to look for the deeper meaning.

As for your third, no it is not. It is not up to me to do anything of the sort. I do not wish to prove anyone wrong, I merely ask to have an open mind and dig deep while reading the book. And if you come to the same conclusions, then so be it. To each his own.

I apologize if i offended you in any way because it seems as if you got defensive and went on the offensive. So my sincerest apologies.

God Bless and peace be with you.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

To your first question, no I do not believe that the Bible teaches polytheism and I do not think that the book does either.

Then you haven’t read the book. It very clearly teaches polytheism.

It simply shows the three aspects(for lack of a better word) of God: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Oh, you mean like modalism.

The book never states that they are three separate gods. It portrays them all as being the same God and not separate.

I disagree. I believe the book teaches polytheism very plainly.

For you second question, I never said that they were Unbiblical only that they may seem so at first glance. Also, I think that the author took the liberty of using parables, thus my asking you to look for the deeper meaning.

Again, if something is Unbiblical, then why should we look for the “deeper meaning”?

As for your third, no it is not. It is not up to me to do anything of the sort.

Oh, OK. So then, you just make the accusation. You don’t actually back it up.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[yellowbird]

I apologize if i offended you in any way because it seems as if you got defensive and went on the offensive. So my sincerest apologies.

God Bless and peace be with you.

That’s very nice of you to say… although it seems it has fallen on deaf ears?

I see this is only your 2nd post. Please allow me to welcome you to the forums.

 

[chevarra]

Then you haven’t read the book. It very clearly teaches polytheism.

No it does not. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. Atleast according to every definition I have ever read. Maybe we have extremely different dictionaries. The book refers to them as being three different aspects of God, but ultimately one God. To try to clarify my point let me use a bad example: Would you say that someone with a multiple personality disorder is more than one person? And would you say that each person needs his own Social Security number, driver’s license and passport? I would hope not, because they are in the end, the same person with the same DNA and fingerprints, not several people.

Oh, you mean like modalism.

No not at all. More like trinitarianism.

I disagree. I believe the book teaches polytheism very plainly.

Please refer to my first reply to this.

Again, if something is Unbiblical, then why should we look for the “deeper meaning”?

I never said it was Unbiblical, only that it may seem so. The use of parables can be very confusing to some, but would you have told Jesus ‘Whats the point of looking for a deeper meaning in your parables?’ I sincerely hope not.

Oh, OK. So then, you just make the accusation. You don’t actually back it up.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

I never made an outright accusation. I said that it seemed to be taken out of context. ‘Seemed’ being the operative word. Seemed is a biased word meant to imply personal opinion. And As I no longer have my copy that I read, I could not make an accusation. An accusation requires proof, I agree with you there. I simply stated my opinion on the matter because when I read those same passages, I did not feel the same way as whoever posted them.

And I would like to thank you, yellowbird, for welcoming me to the forums, so “Thank you!”

God Bless and peace be with you.

 

[cygreco]

I registered for this site because I just read The Shack and am looking for insight on it.

I found the comments by Davidjennstad very helpful. I agree with him that making a fictional character be the Godhead and teach all sorts of theology is a heady proposition for a novel!!

As a new Catholic, I rely on the Church and her hierarchy to keep me in the truth. I was worn out after years, as a protestant, of being tossed by every wind of doctrine.

I find it troubling that a novelist would denegrate the Church as an organization and then would create from his own imagination words emminating from the mouth of the Godhead.

I have also found a promise that in praying the Rosary, Mary will protect us from heresy. Oh how I cling to that promise as for my very life!!

 

[Pastor_Jim]

No it does not.

Actually, I and at least one other poster has shown, using excerpts from the book, that it does.

The book refers to them as being three different aspects of God, but ultimately one God.

If that’s what the book said, then that would be modalism, which is just as heretical as polytheism.

To try to clarify my point let me use a bad example: Would you say that someone with a multiple personality disorder is more than one person? And would you say that each person needs his own Social Security number, driver’s license and passport? I would hope not, because they are in the end, the same person with the same DNA and fingerprints, not several people.

So then, are you suggesting that the three persons of the Godhead are really one person?

Oh, you mean like modalism.

No not at all. More like trinitarianism.

That isn’t Trinitarianism. To say that the three persons of the Godhead are really just three manifestations of one god is modalism.

I never said it was Unbiblical, only that it may seem so. The use of parables can be very confusing to some, but would you have told Jesus ‘Whats the point of looking for a deeper meaning in your parables?’ I sincerely hope not.

Which of Jesus’ parables do you believe is Unbiblical?

I never made an outright accusation. I said that it seemed to be taken out of context.

You said I took it out of context. I would like for you to back this accusation up and show not only how I took it out of context, but what you believe the correct context is.

 

[bnapgh]

I just finished the book and found most of it to be a ‘‘feel good’’ approach to God that wants to shun rules and religion in order to focus on personal ‘‘relationships’’ with God.

I found the list of errors detailed above to be quite accurate and not out of context at all.

In my opinion the book did represent the Trinity as three distinct people and clearly not as three ‘‘gods’’, but all the same one . As an example, the three persons offer answers in unison to questions the protagonist poses to God.

How could anyone describe sitting in a room with all three members of the Trinity?

In my opinion the book was a vain attempt to deal with very complex issues in a very simple and often inaccurate way. The complex issues would include:

• bad people inside the religious ‘‘church’’ (as opposed to the ‘‘mystical body’’)
• rules vs. love
• gender stereotypes
• justice vs. mercy
• human interaction
• guilt
• anger
• revenge
• why bad things happen to good people
• how it ‘‘feels’’ to be in heaven
• miracles (walking on water)

For the most part I felt the presentation was simplistic but somewhat effective. The emanations of colors to represent human emotions was interesting.

The major errors, as stated above, were the categorical conclusions that religion was one of the three bains of society and that loving (having a ‘‘relationship’’ with) Christ (not God, but Christ per se) was no more valid in Christianity than in Budhism.

As I said, in my opinion the book seemed to be aimed at the ingenuous who are hung up on the formalities of religions as a confusing — and to the authors a bad — thing. I do believe there are many, many people in the world who are so caught up with guilt and the negativism of the ‘‘shalt nots’’ and the ‘‘eye for an eye’’ vengence interpretations of the Bible, that they cannot internalize that to ‘‘love God’’ and to ‘‘love thy neighbor’’ is the basis for it all.

If one were to be ‘‘hung up’’ in this way, then I can see why one could react quite positively to this book’s underlying message that love trumps guilt and vengence.

The storyline in my opinion uses some heavy-handed tugging of familial heartstrings to grab the reader’s emotional involvement, but that is an art critique not a religious one.

This book in my opinion tries to be a simple pitch for love relationships to trump authoritative ones. I share that objective.

But I also feel the book’s storyline is so simplistic and — almost Hollywoodesque — that I, personally, found it more cute than entertaining, and more cliched than enlightening.

If anything, its reception might be merely a commentary on the state of many Christians’ Faith.

But if it helps them, so be it. Speaking of cliches, I hope readers will understand that this book ‘‘throws out the baby with the bathwater’’ when it simplistically and wrongfully condemns all rules and religions.

 

[surfinpure]

I’m grateful to find this thread, because I’ve never read the book and have no interest in doing so. A Protestant friend just sent me the link (livinghopechurch.com/group/lhc/media_video/player/459)
to Paul Young telling “the story behind the story” of The Shack, and it’s a whopping 52 minutes long. I didn’t have the heart to tell her I’m not going to waste 52 minutes listening to a Protestant wax on about his conversion experience, no matter how “awesome” people say it is.

I did find this Catholic media review that had some helpful bits, and I sent portions along in reply to her to explain where our theology diverges from Young’s. catholicmediareview.blogspot.com/2008/07/book-review-shack.html

 

[panther]

OP here - I just found out that The Shack will be made into a motion picture with a big-name director. No word on when, but be prepared!

 

[jebeau]

One specific difficulty with “The Shack” that comes to my mind is:

In the Catholic Catechism (I don’t have my copy handy or I’d cite the number) the point is made that God chooses to refer to himself as father. So even though, theologically, we can understand God’s divinity not to be exclusively male or exclusively female, we do have an example of how to relate to God, practically. He chooses that term “Father” himself, and that’s why we use it, not to put down women or anything. But when “The Shack” uses a woman character to portray God, the creator of the universe, Catholics should object and put down that book.

That’s one thing I can think of that’s wrong with that book. . .although I’m not an expert in any way. I just know, that we, as Catholics, don’t call God “Father/Mother” God. He’s just Our Father, because that’s what he chose to call himself.

In my opinion, that book “The Shack” is unecessary and just weird. Sorry to anyone who likes it.

To me, it’s like “The Secret” or “A Course In Miracles”. My own rule of thumb is to be suspicious of anything “spiritual” promoted by Oprah.

 

[jebeau]

Dear Cygreco:

I agree with your comments:

"As a new Catholic, I rely on the Church and her hierarchy to keep me in the truth. I was worn out after years, as a protestant, of being tossed by every wind of doctrine.

I find it troubling that a novelist would denegrate the Church as an organization and then would create from his own imagination words emminating from the mouth of the Godhead."

I had the same problem with the later books of the Left Behind series. I mean, how does any human being, even in a novel, speak for God.

I’m very glad to be in that “organizational” church known as our One, True, Apostolic, Holy Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Atlanta_Jen]

Wow.

I am in the process of reading this book and so far, it’s interesting to hear this author’s perspective. He’s obviously not Catholic, and yes, he does present his point of view from a “personal relationship with Christ” kind of standpoint, but I have just kept in perspective that it’s fiction. It’s one man’s idea, thinking outside the box, about what God may be. I think one of the mysteries about God is that we as humans have a preconceived idea about what God is, about what form he takes. For all we know, He could be a man with a flowing beard, or He could take the form of a ball of light, or he could change from minute to minute. What He is may be beyond human comprehension, which is what I took away from this book. It has not changed my Catholic beliefs at all, but it has made me more aware of His presence in the world around me, if that makes sense. I have not read it from a standpoint of comparing it to Scripture and tearing it down-I’ve looked at is as light reading, mostly, taking it with a grain of salt. And going back to my church like I do every Sunday and during the week. Maybe I’ve missed something…

 

[Dante_Explorer]

The book is definitely written from an Evangelical, anti-religion perspective. It has a few good qualities, fast moving story, interesting view of Heaven. However, it goes out of it’s way to dismiss ritual and any type of organized worship (much less the hierarchical structure of the church). At one point, the Trinity is consuming a meal of bread and wine without any ‘ritual’. Clearly a jab at Catholicism. Of course the issue of redemptive suffering is not even remotely addressed. All in all, it’s ok, but if you are not strong in your Catholic beliefs, I would avoid the book.

 

[lawlerml]

I recommend that you read the book, but read it knowing that you will agree with some of the points made and disagree with others. The most toubling to me is the dialogue against institution andd rules. In this “human” world, I think institutions and rules are the frameworks through which we make decisions in our lives. Also, institutions and rules ar the structures through which we come to experience, know ,and love Christ. This book is full of opportunities to challenge your approach to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and flip some of our traditional thinkings on end. As long as this book is approached with the thinking that there is much about God yet to be expienced and much more about the trinity that the Church can help us understand, the reader is safe to enjoy this book.

 

[omniginger]

I’m pleased to have come to a thread discussing this heretical book. It was recommended by a fellow Catholic, whom I have not had a conversation about the book with. (I hope it doesn’t come up, quite frankly.) I found the book blasphemous, non-Catholic whatsoever, and extremely Protestant/Unitarian/New Age drivel. Despite my being a tough critic on literature and fiction (and reputation for throwing a book away after 10 pages often), I took up the challenge to stomach the book to at least see how the non-Catholic mind works. What a sad, directionless, far reaching, anarchistic, private interpretation-friendly heaping mess. To see the garden, for example, as completely out of order should be one of thousands of even subtle cues this book is fiction for fiction’s sake.

 

[dchet121272]

I just finished reading this book yesterday. I was given this book as a gift from a former Catholic who left the church and was re-baptized again in her church of what’s happening Now. I know the kind of things they are feeding her and when she gave me the book with…“OH, YOU GOTTA READ THIS!”, I knew what I was getting into. Especially when she gave me some details of the plot.

This book is not doctrine, nor does it claim to be. It is a fictional story about one man’s experience. It is nothing more than a glorified op-ed piece. It slams organized religion and is classic Protestant in that it stresses the importance of a personal relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit nothing more. I read somewhere in this thread that someone mentioned that there was NO mention in the book of Satan. That was something I found disturbing though, especially when you consider what the main character went through.

There are some good points to the book and some very vivid details that help paint a very sweet and fluffy picture of what our world beyond this one might be like.

Read it with a grain of salt and you’ll be fine.

 

[7_Sorrows]

recently, two people recommended that i read The Shack by William P. Young.
i had seen the book at a Catholic Bookstore, but did not know much about it and did not think it looked like Catholic fiction.
so one of my friends loaned me her copy yesterday and i began reading it last night. i got through the first 4 or 5 chapters and then reached the part where he goes to The Shack and strange things begin to happen. i thought it was silly. i put the book down. i could see where it was going. the author sounds like someone who would appear on oprah and believes in a new age christianity. perhaps i am not being fair since i did not finish the book and maybe there have already been threads on this book earlier in the year.
anyhow, it is a new york times bestseller so there must be a lot of people out there being moved by this book. does anyone want to share their opinions on this book if they have read itl?