The God Chasers; The Shack; He Loves Me; Quix Commentary on 3 books

Quix & books listed ^ | 15 JUL 2009, 2000 | Quix, Tommy Tenney, William P Young, Wayne Jacobsen,

[Quix]

BTW, have you read THE SHACK?

[Quix]

I just read Colson’s critique.

I think he’s off base by a huge margin.

I found his attitude . . . well . . . not to match my experience of THE SHACK

and . . . sadly, uncharacteristically for him . . .

PRISSY.

God is Holy.

God is NOT PRISSY.

I found the GOD OF SCRIPTURE vividly in THE SHACK.

Colson’s rant about a low view of Scripture in the Shack is simply not true.

[dangus]

Well, that explains a lot. On religion threads, your choice of font has made it seem like you were screaming or hogging for attention. I know you’ve been called out on that. You should’ve told us. I’d recommend IE 7 or later, which allows you to magnify the entire screen by hitting the fire button and scrolling up.

[Quix]

FROM the first link:

But Stackhouse also criticized The Shack. Most of his complaints had to do with the novel's denunciations of "institutional" Christianity, as well as seminaries, ritual and hierarchy.

Ahhhhhhhhhh . . .

ritual and hierarchy . . . and here I thought you represented folks vigorously hostile to RC ritual and hierarchy. Guess I really have misunderstood you a LOT!

[Quix]

Not sure where you’ve been.

I HAVE told folks about that repeatedly.

I’ve also noted that I happen to have a personality that LIKES vivid color and variety. There aren’t a LOT of options for expressiveness in text based communication. I like to use all I can get away with.

BTW, I don’t need to ‘hog for attention’ . . . I get plenty just walking down the street—even if I had a bag over my head! LOL. Goes with the territory of ‘merely’ being Quix.

I also know that text based communication which has some uniqueness to it will likely be notice or recalled more/longer than that which does not. When I think something is of above average importance, I’m likely to get ‘excessive’ in that department per some views.

The fire button?? the MS button on the lower left? I always have the latest versions of Explorer.

I use Firefox mostly but now it seems to have a bug where I can’t select and copy reliably. Sigh.

Thanks for your input.

[Quix]

DEAR ONES,

This is anonymously from a fellow FREEPER:

I am in Michigan right now and it has been powerful , lots of divine appointments instructing others in warfare and discernment . I met a group of hispanic prayer warriors and the Lord brought me to them the very night I got off the plane to give them word of knowledge for what they had just been praying about !Praise the Lord when he uses us for others to be encouraged and instill hope to carry on in this battle to walk as Overcomers and become a tree of life for others !

[Quix]

I’m increasingly convinced by folks’ responses to books like

THE SHACK etc.

that

BIBLICAL, LIKE BEAUTY

AND TRUTH . . . RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . BALANCE . . . GODLINESS

seem to be very much in the eye and heart of the beholder.

. . . or not.

[jackv]

I read the Shack also...and was afraid to say outloud how much I liked it. I was prepared for it to be heresy but once you get halfway thru the real substance of it comes in and I was extrememly moved. It was truly a story about the Holy Trinity. People who have not read it have “heard about” or read passages and words that turn them off, which is a shame, really.
Thanks, Quix!

[JohnnyM]

The Shack does not have a very biblical understanding of the father or the trinity.

The book does a good job with the issue of why does God allow evil to happen or why do bad things happen to good people. But the books views on authority and the nature of God leave a lot to be desired. And yes, I have read the book.

JM

[Quix]

INDEED.

I read it with a moderately close scrutiny/look out for heresy.

I just didn’t find any.

Imputing heresy out of one’s own junk is not very righteous, nor Christian, imho.

[Quix]

I don’t think the PURPOSE on the book was to elaborate on, clarify, explore . . . etc.

God’s authority.

That was just not the purpose of the book.

However, I did not find anything per se wrong or unBiblical about God’s authority as presented in the book. It just wasn’t the emphasis.

The emphasis was, imho, about God’s Love and God really Loving his prime creation . . . and God not being prissy. I loved that. Have long felt that was true.

[Quix]

Actually, I disagree that the book does not have a very Biblical understanding of The Father nor of The Trinity.

I think it enlarged my understanding and that it did so in very very Biblical respects and ways.

I am reminded . . .

I was all set to be outraged at GODSPELL before I saw it.

Instead, God said, essentially . . . see . . . it’s a pretty good representation of some of my truth, of me. I had to admit I was wrong.

I found that Scripture related rather straight forwardly to THE FATHER presented in THE SHACK as well as to THE TRINITY.

When I read Roland Buck’s ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT after hearing him speak . . . I’d heard him speak much earlier while the experiences were still going on. . . .

anyway—I was all set to be wary with that book too. However, I found instead, a very blessed, uplifting, encouraging and BIBLICAL PRESENTATION OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE I’D LOVED ALL MY LIFE.

I found that true in THE SHACK, too.

God will simply not fit in anyone’s tidy little box.

He even knocked out the sides of the boxes HE HIMSELF instructed to be built.

[jackv]

I was fearful that it was going to be a mumbo jumbo of new age-ism and was pleasantly surprised.
I have read the author say that he wrote it for his children to explain spirituality and had no intention of publishing it until his friends and family persuaded him to do so.
This explains it’s style a bit I think.

[Quix]

I’m sure you’re right.

The Lord of The Rings started out that way, too.

Very Biblical . . .

‘EXCEPT YOU COME AS LITTLE CHILDREN . . . YOU WILL HAVE NO PART . . . ‘

[Alex Murphy]

Re posts #20, #21, #22, #24:

I asked you to stop pinging me. And as predicted, I'm still waiting.

[ZX12R]

Face it. You're a card carrying FRingie now.

[JohnnyM]

"Instead, God said, essentially . . . see . . . it’s a pretty good representation of some of my truth, of me"

thats the problem. God doesn't want a pretty good representation of some of His truth. He wants an accurate represenatation of all The Truth.

God the Father is never represented in the Bible as a woman, neither is the Holy Spirit. To do so is take away from the Truth. The author explains in the book why he chose to represent Him that way, but his explanation does not jive with Scripture.

Take Job. God didn't reveal Himself to Job, who went through much worse than Mack ever did, as something approachable or something that Job could handle. When God appeared to Job, He appeared as the Creator of the Universe and put Job in his place. God does not change Himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is.

The real issue I have with the book is on the issue of authority. In the book, Papa (God the Father) tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion.

"Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or "great chain of being" as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us."

However, Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father, and He does the will of the Father. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that not His will be done, by Thy will be done. Jesus submits to the authority of the Father. These are not the results of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission.

There are clear examples of authority and submission throughout the Bible. The book of Matthew is focused on the authority of Jesus Christ. The angels have rank and levels of authoirty. Wives should submit to their husbands and we must submit to the authority of God and Jesus Christ.

I understand the book is a work of fiction and it should be approached as such, but when people start treating it as the gospel truth or Scripture, then trouble can arise.

JM

[JohnnyM]

Here is more on authority in The Shack:

The Shacks view on Biblical authority

JM

[Quix]

You pinged me/posted to me first on this thread.

You posted three links.

When you ping me on a thread I post, particularly with links,

you can expect me to respond.

When you engage a thread and a topic that I’ve started—particularly with links, you can expect me to respond meaningfully and attempt to have a dialogue.

You can call me names all you wish.

You can be as derisive and dismissive as you wish.

At some point, that will have to be between you and God.

[Quix]

Scripture in the New Testament is clearly

MUCH MORE INSISTENT

about

SUBMITTING ONE TO ANOTHER.

EXHORTING ONE ANOTHER

CONFESSING TO ONE ANOTHER THAT YOU MAY BE HEALED

than it is about hierarchical submission.

That’s just the Scriptural truth of the whole of the New Testament. That’s the Biblical EMPHASIS there.

Of course, as Isaiah said . . . and as THE GOD CHASERS illustrates so well . . .

at times, GOD IS HIGH AND LIFTED UP AND HIS TRAIN FILLS THE TEMPLE and the only fitting response is on one’s face on the floor.

That was not the aspect of God the author of the SHACK set out to emphasize and illustrate with his children.

I have no trouble with that.

When folks are blown sky west and straight by God’s overwhelming Love piercing every corner, nook and cranny of their hearts—they are EAGERLY submitted wholesale to God in ways

NO amount of legalism, lists, authority issues etc. can EVER achieve.

HE LOVES ME makes that as clear (or clearer than) as my 62 years have.