I got a headache when I saw the book “The Shack” by William P. Young receiving high recommendation on FAF forum, without anyone pointing to the bad theology contained in this book. I had not read the book, so the present evaluation does not stand for a review, but I recommend reading the review made by Tim Challies, http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php
The book is a Christian fiction similar to Pilgrims Progress, and I don’t doubt that it has a very good style. Not the form or the genre of the book concerns me, but the content. A guy named Mack is involved with a conversation with the Trinity, where the Father is personified by a ... Black Woman. I knew that Ellen White, the third Person of the Godhead for the early adventist was a white woman, but we are in the era of political correctness.
My concern was stirred by the fact that the book received an endorsement especially for a part that it is something which should raise eyebrows, and concern any Protestant, any Evangelical who is claiming to believe in Sola Scriptura, Bible alone as a rule of faith. The author of the post changed the names of the characters in order not to spoil any of the story for those who will read the book
HOLY SPIRIT: You can always talk to me and I will always be with you, whether you sense my presence or not.
MAIN CHARACTER: I know that now, but how will I hear you?
HOLY SPIRIT: You will learn to hear My thoughts in yours.
MAIN CHARACTER: Will it be clear? What if I confuse You with another voice? What if I make mistakes?
HOLY SPIRIT: Of course, you will make mistakes. Everybody makes mistake, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow our relationship.
MAIN CHARACTER: It feels like living out of relationship - you know, trusting and talking to You - is a bit more complicated than just following rules.
HOLY SPIRIT: What rules are those?
MAIN CHARACTER: You know, all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do.
HOLY SPIRIT: And what might those be?
MAIN CHARACTER: You know, about doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying and going to church. Things like that.
HOLY SPIRIT: And how is that working for you?
MAIN CHARACTER: Well, I’ve never done it very well. I have moments that aren’t too bad, but there’s always something I’m struggling with, or feeling guilty about. I just figured I needed to try harder, but I find it difficult to sustain that motivation.
HOLY SPIRIT: The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what He may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in Him and in no other. My goodness, you didn’t think you could live the righteousness of God on your own, did you?
MAIN CHARACTER: Well, I thought so, sorta....but you gotta admit, rules and principles are simpler than relationships.
HOLY SPIRIT: It is true that relationships are a whole lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart and they will never love you. Religion is about having the right answers, and some of their answers are right. But I am about the process that takes you to the Living Answer and one you get to Him, He will change you from the inside. There are a lot of smart people who are able to say a lot of right things from their brain because they have been told what the right answers are, but they don’t know Me at all. So really, how can their answers be right even if they are right, if you understand My drift?
The author construes a false dichotomy here, following rules versus loving God. it is true that just following rules apart from a relationship with God is not effective, but I wonder why ‘reading your Bible, praying and going to church” are not put in the right perspective, as God ordained means for our sanctification, for developing a better relationship with him. I don’t know why prayer, Bible study, and fellowship with other believers at the church should be presented in contrast with relationship with God. Why prayer which is our talking to God, and study of Bible which is God talking to us should be classified as rules in opposition with relationship with God. Why also doing good things and avoiding bad things could not be seen through the lens of loving our neighbor as we love ourselves, not as a rule, but as a relationship with others, as a manifestation of our love for God, since no one who does not love his neighbor loves God. And there is also an internal contradiction between affirming on one side that the rules are “all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do” just to deny this afterward by “The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules”. Even if the intention was “The Bible doesn’t teach us that following rules is the essence of the Christian life, but still give us enough instruction for a healthy relationship with God. But first and foremost, it points us to what Jesus has done for us in his life and his sacrifice on the cross, not to what we do in order to have a relationship with him.
A second dichotomy is construed, a religion of the head with a religion of the heart, knowing God in your mind versus knowing God in your heart. it is true that you can know God only at an intellectual level without the truth transforming your entire being, but the way to our hearts is through our minds. The book “The Shack” itself is a refutation of its thesis, because it brings on the scene ideas about God which people find very good, and consequently are adopting a different image of God that they previously had. It is a paradigm shift, and it operates at the head level first, and second to the heart level. But this plays in the trend of Postmodernism when propositional revelation about God in the Bible is downplayed, or even ignored, replaced with an existential religion, in which experience takes precedence over objective truth.
And this inevitably leads to my greatest concern regarding what I emphasized with bold letters above, is knowing God in your mind in a subjective way, open to misunderstanding (the fictional character admits that people make mistakes when they attempt to hear God’s voice in their hearts). This sounds very similar to a direct revelation from God, God speaking outside of the Bible in our hearts. Especially when you had rejected Ellen White’s claims of direct revelations on the basis of a closing canon of the Bible, talking about God’s voice in our heart apart from the revealed Word of God is opening the door again for fresh revelations, a negation that the final revelation about God came to us in the person and work of Christ. It only changes one person (Ellen White) with my person, one claim of direct revelation with other claim, the only difference being that now I’m listening this voice in my head instead listening the voice of God in another head.
Seeing this, I wanted to be sure that I need to check if William P. Young really is arguing for subjective revelations. Here is what Tim Challies says in his review, starting by quoting from the book:
“You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”
Beyond looking for new revelation, The Shack says little about how God has communicated or will continue to communicate with us in Scripture. There are a couple of times that it mentions the Bible, but never does it point to Scripture as a real authority or as the sufficient Word of God. “In seminary [Mac] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects… Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” Here we see Young pointing away from Scripture rather than towards it. Through Mack he scoffs at the idea that God has spoken authoritatively and sufficiently through the Bible. And if he points away from Scripture he points towards subjective promptings and leadings..
‘God in a box, confined to a book” is a way of depreciating God’s revelation in the Bible, and is accompanied to n attitude of contempt toward good scholarship: “deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects” Tim Challies expressed the same concern here
Despite the great amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodoxy Christianity. For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, “I understand what you’re saying. I did that for years after seminary. I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn’t know you. This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.”
Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young’s readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: “Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It’s a gift. ‘Discipleship’ will never be lessons again.” Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their “modern” mindsets. “If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening.” Still another says “This book was so shocking to my “staid” Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is.” At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity—to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology—and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.
The reviewer saying “if one is coming from a strong, propositional and perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening.” confirms that the book is a threat to propositional revelation, to Sola Scriptura, to the authority of the Bible. The content of the book presents other problems, about which I will not comment, but I’ll post here for edification.
God: “I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature.” Pg 93
God: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Pg 120
Jesus: “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian….. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims… I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.” Pg 182
I also read the unreserved accolades on FAF. In that my wife enjoys Christian novels I was going to buy ‘The Shack’ for her but thought it wise to investigate. I read the same review plus the responses to the review. My impression is that ‘The Shack’ espouses an emergent church type philosophy and is quite unscriptural. Your post confirms my conclusion.
Challies’ warning is very appropriate:
“Second, we must also realize that, because of the emotional impact of reading good fiction, it can be easy to allow it to become manipulative and to allow the emotion of a moment to bypass our ability to discern what is true and what is not. This is another thing the reader must keep in mind. We cannot trust our laughter or our tears but must allow our powers of discernment to be trained to distinguish good from evil (see Hebrews 5:14). Discernment is primarily a Spirit-empowered discipline of the mind rather than an emotional response.”
It is always good to investigate. I think that you hit the sensible cord with the quote from Challies, the emotional impact of the story has a huge potential to reduce the critical thinking at minimum. When people find pleasure in something, it is easy to indulge in wishful thinking and construe world of fantasy without checking the reality.
Gabriel, thanks bringing this book to our attention. The response given to the book says a lot about those endorsing it, but it says more about the “god” of our age where the voices in our head take precedence over the unchangeable voice of God from ages past. This book is more evidence of the postmodern mindset infiltrating orthodox Christianity, all with the goal of replacing the source of objective truth—the Scriptures—with unique and personal revelations derived from inside ourselves. I don’t deny that God can and does speak outside of Scripture, but he does so in harmony with what he has already said in his Word (Isaiah 8:20). William Young’s assertion that the “rules” of Scripture are somehow opposed to the Spirit, if true, makes God a self-contradictory and fickle deity rather than the ageless Alpha and Omega whose revealed will does not change. At best, God is guilty of confusing people by revealing himself through the law only to overturn it all in the new dispensation of the Spirit.
Somehow, a God who has already spoken just isn’t captivating enough for the postmodern mind. We want something more—a god inside our heads who overturns the commands of Scripture and places us and our needs at the center of everything.
For those of you who still have posting privileges on FAF, did you bring the above review to their attention? It would be intersting to see what the responses would be on FAF if someone challenged those who were giving the accolades.
However, this illustrates how former Adventists need to be constantly reminded of the type of subjective nonsense that came from Ellen White, but not to fall prey to another very dangerous and seductive philosophy.
Thanks Gabriel for bringing this to our attention.
Now I just have seen a post by Susans on FAF linking to Tim Challies critique and I am waiting for further replies. It looks like Colleen’s comments are couched in somewhat reserved form as she does not seem to totally endorse everything the book teaches but seems to be overall favorably impressed.
Here is an interesting quote from Tim Challies review:
“Overall, I had to conclude that Young has an inadequate and often-unbiblical understanding of the Trinity. While granting that the Trinity is a very difficult topic to understand and one that we cannot know fully, there are several indications that he often blurs the distinct persons of the Trinity along with their roles and their unique attributes. Combined with his novel but unsupported conjectures, this is a serious concern.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I am waiting to see if our friend Jeremy expresses his concerns about the tri-theistic leanings of this author?
Since they have been so critical of SDA’s understanding of the Trinity, why is it not an issue when questionable views of the Trinity are brought up in this book?
Another disturbing feature of the book is outlined here:
“Overall, Young presents a God who is unable or unwilling to break into history in any consequential way. He is sovereign at times, but certainly not so in conversion (a topic that receives only scant attention) and is limited by the free will choices of human beings. Scant attention is paid to God’s fore-ordination, the understanding that nothing happens without it somehow being part of His decree (even while God cannot be accused of being the author of evil). Papa explains to Mack, “There was no way to create freedom without a cost.” But nowhere in the Bible do we find that God is somehow made captive by human free will and that He has to allow things to proceed in order to maintain His own integrity as Creator. Always God is sovereign, even over the free will choices of men. Our inability to understand how this can be does not preclude us from the responsibility of believing it.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see why this book appeals so widely to an Emergent Church mentality, where absolute theological truth is diminished in importance.
Now, I am waiting to see if our friend Jeremy expresses his concerns about the tri-theistic leanings of this author?
Since they have been so critical of SDA’s understanding of the Trinity, why is it not an issue when questionable views of the Trinity are brought up in this book?
Simple, this criticism is used is to rally the troops against Adventism. I suppose the author of The Shack can be forgiven because he did not learn his doctrine from Ellen White. The “us vs. them” mentality remains alive and well.
There is a lesson in here somewhere—something about a log and a sliver in the eye.
Honestly, I wish the critics of Adventism would spend a little more time in self-examination rather than painting everything as a dichotomy between good (former Adventist) vs. evil (Adventist).
Interesting is how Tim Challies is now criticized on FAF for being a Calvinist, and his Calvinism is seen as a barrier, a bias which makes him entirely missing the point of the book. Look here
And Young did not promote universalism in the book. The book talks about not all roads leading to Jesus. In fact, the only way I can see anyone seeing a “universalist” perspective on it is if you believe in “limited atonement”.
That surely touches a sensible nerve in my personal view regarding the matter, for I don’t want that my understanding of the cross and atonement to be the basis of accusing those who differ on this subject as being universalists. If indeed this is the situation with Tim Challies, the criticism is right to the point.
Here is Tim Challies’ objection, and I agree with him
When Young does discuss conversion, he places it firmly in the camp of relationship but also uses the stereotypical phrases such as “this is not a religion” and “Jesus isn’t a Christian.” Jesus apparently loves all people in exactly the same way, having judged them worthy of his love. Young also wades dangerously close to universalism saying that Jesus has no interest in making people into Christians. Rather, no matter what faith they come from, he wishes to “join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa.” He denies that all roads lead to him (since most roads lead nowhere) but says instead, “I will travel any road to find you.” Whether Young holds to universalism or not, and whether he believes that all faiths can lead a person to God, the book neither affirms nor refutes.
“Jesus apparently loves all people in exactly the same way, having judged them worthy of his love” is perhaps the source of the idea that Tim is accusing Young of Universalism based on his “limited atonement” view. But this affirmation of Tim is in the context of talking about the following quote from Young
Jesus: “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian….. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims… I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.” Pg 182
When saying that Jesus loves all people in exactly the same way, Tim is accusing Young of being close to Universalism because the love of God for man is through Christ only, and those who are not believers in Christ, as Buddhists and Mormons, are under God’s wrath. They are not involved in a love relationship with God, neither they are sons of God.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36 ESV)
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13 ESV)
The privilege of being in a love relationship and not under God’s wrath is only for those who received Christ. Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, who reject Christ’s claims of being the unique Son of God cannot remain what they are, and be involved in a love son-Father relationship with God. A true son will confess what every Christian confess, Jesus as the divine unique Son of God who had died for our sins and who had been raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25). Being a son of God, in a love relationship with him, is identical with being a Christian. Talking like these identities can be separate is opening the door to the idea that Christianity as a system of faith is not the only option for becoming a child of God and enjoy God’s love.
There is something that upsets me very much in the way FAF-ers had criticized Tim Challies, I’ll come later with another post.
Another criticism which is related to the Universalism charge
This book is not about salvation, so Challies criticism of this is a moot point. In the beginning, it is stated that the main character is a believer. What the book IS about is having a deep and inimate relationship with God. And I actually think it’s somewhat ironic that the review itself would miss that point.
How the critic miss the point that Jesus just said that he’s interested in people who are not Christians, unsaved, to have intimate relationship with God is above my understanding. It’s not about Mack, its about Muslims, unbeliever. That was the concern of Challies under the heading “Salvation” in his review. Namely that the author dares to speak about intimate relationship with God outside of a saving relationship with him by trust in Christ as Savior. Is it possible to be in a intimate and love relationship with God without trusting in Jesus as your personal Savior? Is it possible this things for a Muslim? The issue of salvation is inevitable involved, even if the book does not mentions salvation explicitly. But nevertheless what is said about deeper relationships with God affects the way of salvation since there is no intimate relationship with God separate of salvation.
And here is what makes me upset when reading the criticism, because I don’t think it is fair
Having a relationship with God does not mean we have to also have a doctorate in theology. All the fancy intellectual theological debates won’t make God more real to you. Neither will doctrine. Neither will the Law. Not anything but a REAL relationship with God.
God loves me. I don’t just know it intellectually, I know it in my heart and more importantly, my spirit confirms it for me.
If you’re looking for a book to dissect for the purpose of pure intellectual debate, then don’t waste your time. It’s not that type of book. But if you’re looking for a unique perspective on what having a relationship with God is, then you may enjoy this book. From my perspective, I thought the book was Biblical.
The author wants others to quit criticizing the book for theological reasons, talking about “fancy intellectual theological debates”, but afterwards comes and says “From my perspective, I thought the book was Biblical”. With other words, “The book is theologically accurate”. The author wishes to put the entire blame on those who criticized the book, and after they are blamed for introducing “fancy intellectual debates”, in order to discredit them from the start, the author affirms that the book is Biblical, theologically accurate. “Listen to me, the critics are driven by a need for debate, trying to put God in a box, dissecting things for their intellectual satisfaction, listen to me when I say that the book is Biblical, and this is not a theological statement. It has nothing to do with theology.”
... There is a lesson in here somewhere—something about a log and a sliver in the eye.
Honestly, I wish the critics of Adventism would spend a little more time in self-examination rather than painting everything as a dichotomy between good (former Adventist) vs. evil (Adventist).
Greg
Greg, Stan, Gabriel,
While researching something else I stumbled onto this verse from the Apostle Paul. With all respect, it seemed appropriate and highly applicable to this thread, especially at this time. If I may, I’ll introduce it, with my own lead-in:
We, as believers in and followers of Christ, are always under the close scrutiny of both non-believers and our errant brothers…
[quote author="1 Corinthians 4:1-7 NIV"]
Apostles of Christ
1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
Did not EGW “go beyond what was written”? With scripture as our witness, we cautiously and respectfully believe this to be so…
However,
We must guard against any prideful actions on our part! So that we do not “take pride in one man over against another”!
I am convinced that when it comes to our faith in Christ Crucified and in the Holy Scripture as the Word of God, our sinful nature is the engine of human error, fueled by a self-serving and zealous pride. Even for the righteous, human pride remains a serious and continuous threat! Only the protection of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will see us through the storm.
I think you’re correct, and pride stands in our way in more subtle ways we even be aware. I’m not free from this sin, and certainly I cannot claim perfection neither in deed or in motivation. These things being affirmed, I’m open to criticism for “taking pride over against another” and how this affects the accuracy of what I had written. I don’t want that my testimony about truth to be distorted by my innate pride, so I’m willing to correct what I had affirmed, if convincing proof is brought on the scene. I did this as an adventist and I became a former, and I changed my views as a former, as the evidenced presented compelled me to take different positions.
I think you’re correct, and pride stands in our way in more subtle ways we even be aware. I’m not free from this sin, and certainly I cannot claim perfection neither in deed or in motivation. These things being affirmed, I’m open to criticism for “taking pride over against another” and how this affects the accuracy of what I had written. I don’t want that my testimony about truth to be distorted by my innate pride, so I’m willing to correct what I had affirmed, if convincing proof is brought on the scene. I did this as an adventist and I became a former, and I changed my views as a former, as the evidenced presented compelled me to take different positions.
Gabriel
Brother Gabriel,
Assuming that what I interpreted and wrote was sound from the perspective of scripture, my only intention was to put up a warning sign for all of us to see and (maybe) heed as we feel the Spirit leads us.
I hope and pray that you didn’t think I was addressing you or anyone else specifically!
I have to come out of lurk mode to tell you I am the person who started “The Shack” post on FAF. What brings me here to voice my concern is my disappointment in 4TG. It seems you have fallen into the same bondage as some who post on FAF.
The reason I posted what I did on FAF is I have felt for a long time now that many Former SDA members fall from the bondage of Adventism into the bondage of being “Former”. My message for the past several years (the very infrequent times I have posted) has been - the Good News of the Gospel has set you FREE to enjoy a relationship with our Savior. God brought those of us who have left Adventism to the understanding of Grace. It was HIS leading. He wants so much more for us than to LEAVE a religion. He wants us to embrace Him. To hang onto the past and focus on what was is not letting The Truth set us free. My whole goal for posting on FAF is to bring the New Covenant message ONLY. “The Shack”, though a NOVEL, gives an analogy that puts the New Covenant message of redemptive love, forgiveness and grace in a beautiful way that draws those in bondage out of prison into freedom through the trinity of God.
I am very, very disappointed that I am finding the same tone here at 4TG. I am not disappointed that you disagree with me. That is fine. What is a shame is the judgmental tone. Have any of you actually read the book? Did you see it is A NOVEL? Did anyone say it was sacred and to be heeded?
I will say to you here on 4TG what I said on FAF today (copied and pasted from FAF forum):
I am sure people who cling to religious doctrines would be VERY uncomfortable with this book. The whole point to the story ("The Shack") is God is God and none of us pitiful human beings have any ounce of an idea what He is all about. Religion and doctrines have been the devil’s best tools from the beginning of time! Why would he stop now? When searching for all the right answers gets in the way of a real. authentic relationship with God, we will always live in a bondage of some sort.
The funny thing is, we created human beings have had this comfort from putting God in a box. It is much easier to somehow “surrender” when we “know” what we are surrending to. Yes, God has a Great Book for us to use in knowing Him but how many of us have used the Bible for putting Him where WE want Him to be? If He wanted us to have all the answers about Himself, it seems we would be gods ourselves. Maybe that is why so many of us believe we have some sort of control in changing people (think spouse and children). He alone is the Power, our Power, to change ourselves, to grow ourselves, to accept ourselves - as He intended all along (from the Garden of Eden) to focus on our very own relationship with Him.
“The truth will set you free” means so much more than finding Jesus as your Savior. It means being free to forgive (which is MUCH different than forgetting and I am afraid I will have to disagree with Colleen - not forgiving - even those who don’t ask to be forgiven - allows me to hang onto bitterness and resentment and keeps me in bondage and not grasping the truth that sets me free), to move forward in your life, finding His grace is grace to be used in personal relationships (especially the most hateful of family relationships!), having peace that passes understanding during times of trials, persecutions, personal attacks...on and on...it is about the freedom and forgiveness found ONLY in a relationship with our Creator God, Redeemer Jesus and Personal Counselor Holy Spirit!
Praising God for His freeing relationship with little old ME!!
Denise
I have to come out of lurk mode to tell you I am the person who started “The Shack” post on FAF. What brings me here to voice my concern is my disappointment in 4TG. It seems you have fallen into the same bondage as some who post on FAF.
Denise, you know me well, and I hope you understand me when I say that I think you’re off the mark in this comparison. What has transpired on this thread is simply our attempt to exercise Christian discernment like the Bereans, testing new teachings according to the Scriptures to determine whether they are true. There are many books on the Christian landscape which are sold as “aids” or “helps” in understanding God and living the Christian life, but they are not all helpful. Whether they are devotional books, historical fiction, novels, or systematic theologies, they all send a message. It is not the genre, but the message that counts. To highlight one example of the message embedded in The Shack, I’ll repost a part of the book you posted. This passage highlights a false dichotomy the author builds between “knowing Jesus” and “following the rules”. Here it is again:
HOLY SPIRIT: What rules are those?
MAIN CHARACTER: You know, about doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying and going to church. Things like that.
HOLY SPIRIT: And how is that working for you?
MAIN CHARACTER: Well, I’ve never done it very well. I have moments that aren’t too bad, but there’s always something I’m struggling with, or feeling guilty about. I just figured I needed to try harder, but I find it difficult to sustain that motivation.
HOLY SPIRIT: The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus.
Denise, I realize The Shack is a novel and this passage can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but one of the messages it is sending is that “God the law-giver” is somehow opposed to “God the relationship-builder”. I humbly submit to you that this is not a teaching we can find support for in Scripture. Even the apostle Paul—the champion of grace—taught that the “rules” are valuable and in no way opposed to being in a saving relationship with Jesus (e.g. Romans 3:31, Romans 7:7-12, Romans 13:8-10, Ephesians 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 7:19, among others). The overtones of what you’ve written here about being “free” seem to argue against our freedom to live in God’s will and obey Him out of gratitude. Maybe this is not what you meant, but it is what I’m seeing. What I think FAF and other dispensational-minded Christians have succeeded in doing is to paint anyone who even utters the word “law” as a legalist whose faith rests in works and not in a Savior who is powerful enough to give faith, repentence and obedience. Instead, the value of God’s written Word and the commands contained therein are swept away as being opposed to a life lived in the Spirit. This is what I’m reacting to when I read these passages from The Shack.
Furthermore, there is no dichotomy between good theology and a life in the Spirit. We begin to learn about who Jesus is by relying on the written words of Scripture, and if we read those words and formulate ideas from them, we’re “doing theology”. Ironically, even in opposing theology we are taking a theological position!
Denise, I don’t disagree with you that those leaving Adventism would do well to see that they are not simply leaving a religion, but that they are embracing a Savior. As part of that embrace, our desires, thoughts and motives change. We want to walk in the ways of our Savior and we desire to do his will. The apostle Paul encouraged the Roman church to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2), showing us that the Christian life is more than simply an emotional exercise, but one that permeates our entire being—even our intellect. By studying and wrestling with God’s Word—aided by the Holy Spirit—God brings us into conformity with his will and makes his desires our own.
Yes we are FREE. We are free to enjoy our Savior, free to enjoy his blessings and free to obey him from right motivation—not to earn or maintain his favor, but as a glad response to what he has done for us. We are not free, however, to simplify the profound truths of the Bible into a fictional account that minimizes obedience, minimizes faith in Jesus as the only way to the Father, and minimizes the words of Scripture as secondary in value to the manifestations of the Spirit. We are not free, because this very same Spirit also inspired the authors of Scripture to carefully record his words. To read this God-breathed Scripture and look for profound truths about the nature and qualities of our Savior is not “putting God in a box”, it is opening a carefully-wrapped box God prepared for us thousands of years in advance! Likewise, doctrine is not the enemy of the Spirit, it is one of the tools God uses to convey profound truths about himself. Let us be careful not to overthrow the pursuit of good doctrine and a careful study of Scripture with the belief that they are opposed to a life in the Spirit. The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15), and the Spirit-filled believer is always pointed back to them for guidance, comfort and correction.
In closing, Denise, I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote about forgiveness. Here is another area where Jesus sets us free. We are free to look beyond the sins of our past and step out of the bondage of being perpetually “against” something. We are free to be “for” truth, “for” fellowship, “for” Christ and “for” his gospel. While we don’t always reach the mark here on 4TG, this is our prayerful desire. We do not gain our strength in tearing down false teaching, but instead we desire to build up sound teaching through mutual encouragement and study.
Denise, it is my prayer that even when we disagree, we will continue to find our source of agreement in the One who died to free us from the bondage of sin and death, raising us to the newness of life in his Spirit.
