Blessings,
Emily

Have those in church leadership got nothing better to do, people to minister to, than to go up in arms about a book that is FICTION? Who is that really helping, the hungry and the needy, the broken-hearted, or the reputation of those who build up a name round controversies of this kind?

If in doubt, read the Bible and seek God for the Truth. He will always give you an answer ,although it may not come when or how you expected it!

Blessings to you Emily. I really enjoy reading your stuff.

ransom 33

I remember when the last book came along that was fictional (DaVinci Code) I was ask if I would be addressing it in church as so many pastors were. So I did one Sunday… my entire commentary on it was simply this… “It is a work of fiction!” then I stated that the following week we would be dealing with Alice in Wonderland! That is how silly I think it all is.

Now, having said that. I have read and studied The Shack carefully… and I don’t find anything doctrinal incorrect. I think it is just challenging to people who don’t have an intimate relationship with God and they just want a set of rules to live by. And please, he never says Papa was a big ole black lady… that was just the way Mack perceived HIM. Plus, come on folks… study the meaning of El Shaddai! Anyway… if you hang on till the end… he sees God in a different light. Plus…. did it all really happen in the book? You are left to wonder. I mean… was it all a dream he had while unconscious? Well, I guess it doesn’t matter cause it is FICTION! And very good fiction at that!

I don’t propose that we never test doctrine. But I do think you have to be careful when testing the doctrine of a book written as entertainment and not as a doctrinal statement. Plus, shouldn’t all of our doctrine be based on the Bible alone?

Lastly, in the essentials, there should be agreement. In the non-essentials, there must be grace. I know a lot of my “we must play by the rules and laws” brother will not agree with me, but that’s ok, I love you anyway. : )

Watcher~ I’m so sorry I left you hanging. I haven’t looked at this post in ages!! I DID listen to the interview you recommended. Thank you for sharing it with me. I was disappointed in Young for not sharing the salvation message when given the opportunity. But like all debates, I am continually angry at both sides for fighting and putting each other on the defensive when they could be peacefully discussing. The whole point of the interview was just to put Young on-air and attack and condemn his work, which I found to be very mean-spirited and difficult to stomach.

I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Please continue to stop by!

Blessings,
Emily

I listened to an interview with the author of the Shack, Paul Young. He is asked point blank if he believes that everyone has been forgiven of their sins, that is without repenting, and he refuses to answer the question.

He is asked point blank about many of the “divisive ” issues, and becomes a weasel. He is evasive and he is unwilling to state publicly his beliefs.

You can hear the entire interview at
The Shack Book Interview

We get the pain, sorrow and regret part of “repent” from the definition of the Greek word Metanoeo (repent – Luke 13:3), from the Greek text – #3340 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider (morally to feel compunction.)
In the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, part of the definition for compunction is the pain of sorrow or regret for having offended God.

Sorrow for sin that leads to amendment of life, or being sorry enough that we have offended God to repent and being born again, (and then to obey Him,) is my understanding of what is meant.

If you have the Living Bible (the old paraphrased one) look up Psalms 32:6. It basically says “Christians should confess their sins to God when they become aware of them.”
That’s what Mack did on page 184. The character of God says that it’s in the past now, where it belongs, that he doesn’t want his sorrow for it. That is a totally inappropriate response. He confesed his sin that he had just recently been made aware of, as he should have, and as we all should. The real God doesn’t tell us it’s in the past, until after He accepts our confession and apology. And He certainly doesn’t tell us that He doesn’t want our sorrow for it. It was Jesus who taught us that we must repent or perish.

I agree with you that we are to assume that Mack is a Christian. I don’t remember if there was any mention of him becoming one or not. On page 8 it talks about him being at a youth revival, but all it says is that he confessed to a church leader that he hadn’t helped his Mom.

Yes, it was alcohol, plus.

I have been taught that “repent” means, basically, to make a 180 degree turn, go the opposite direction. Where do we get that definition? (I’m sure, at least I HOPE it’s from the Bible. . . but WHERE?) And where, as you said, does the part of feeling pain, sorrow, and regret come in? Where is that part of the definition? Every time I read the Bible I find that it says we need to be “born again” and that we need to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and that we are “saved through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast.” I’m not disagreeing with you . . . I’d just like to know where the church came up with it. And if it means feeling pain and sorrow . . . does that mean that I, who have been raised in a Christian home and always strived to follow Christ . . . did my “repentance” prayer as a child not count?? B/c I knew I had sinned and that it was wrong, but I certainly wasn’t weeping or depressed or losing sleep over it.

But back to “The Shack”, since Mack was already saved, God was discussing the relationship He wanted with Mack NOW, post-repentance. I personally got the drift that we were to assume Mack had already repented. I don’t remember the author giving the specific situation. . . I don’t think it was needed. I remember Mack ran away from home, lived a harsh life, straightened up his life, wound up at seminary for awhile. I realize I’m going on assumptions here, but we’re discussing a fiction story, not a living person.

Refresh my memory (I’ve been reading the book very sporadically, sorry!) . How did Mack’s dad die? Was it alcohol?

Thanks for your comments! I appreciate it! If anyone else would like to jump into this conversation, feel free!

Blessings,
Emily

Mack’s Dad – he went to church but he wasn’t a Christian, was later in the book shown to be among those who would be in heaven. On page 8 it says he was a vicious mean . . . then ask God for forgiveness drunk. He asked to be forgiven, but he didn’t repent. Considering how he met his end, it’s very unlikely that he would have become a Christian in his last moments.

Page 184, where God tells Mack he doesn’t want his sorrow for his sins (arrogance, and judging God.) Part of the definition of “repent” is to feel pain, sorrow, or regret for what we’ve done or left undone. So, for God to tell Mack that he doesn’t want his sorrow for his sin, is for him to say that he doesn’t want him to repent.
Jesus taught us in Luke 13:3 that we must repent, or we will perish, and that we must be born again (John 3:3)

Page 225 – God tells Mack that in Jesus, he has forgiven everyone for their sins against him, but only some choose to have a relationship with him.
The author is teaching that we can have a relationship with the Lord without repenting and being saved from our sins, which is not possible.

God being portrayed as a woman for most of the book was not a concern to me. As you have said, God is Spirit, and of course He is God and He can be anything and anyone that it would please Him to be. It made sense in the context of the story. However, that added to all of the un-Scriptural teaching in the book, folks who did have a problem with it have a point.

You’re right, the author isn’t preaching a salvation mesage.