They’re talking about The Shack at Thinklings–many good comments. I doubt I’ll get around to reading it, but I may wade into it sometime, probably after the next life-changing work of Christian fiction hits the shelves. Jimmy Davis points out some, uh, points here too.
A friend called me for my opinion yesterday. He visited a relative’s church last week where the sermon was devoted to railing against The Shack. He came home to find that the author was speaking at his church this weekend.
Wow. I don’t think the author is qualified to preach a sermon, but then I fancy I could do it sometime and I’m probably not qualify either. I keep thinking I might read it, but I don’t want to spend anything on it.
That’s what libraries are for. Of course even free books extract a cost in terms of the time you invest reading them. You never get those hours or minutes back.
I wrote this analysis for my confused friend I mentioned back in the first comment.
I haven’t read the book, but have run across the debate. What I’ve observed is that the people who promote or use The Shack tend to be pragmatists. Those who rail against it tend to be more doctrinally oriented, focused on what’s right more than what works. On the other hand, the pragmatists who promote the book are often people I’ve noted in other contexts who try to stay away from splitting hairs over correct teaching because that might limit their audience and/or effectiveness. The roots of the conflict predate the book and go much deeper. The ones promoting The Shack have bought into every other feel good program that’s come down the pike. If you dig back into their archives, you’ll likely find that the ones bashing them for The Shack were bashing the same folks for something else not too long ago. Conservatives are much better at identifying what they are against than what they are for.
From the summaries I’ve read, I don’t think the author helps quell the storm. In trying to bring his reader to think of God in a new way he also pushes a few hot-buttons. For the past generation, one big skirmish line between fundamentalists and liberals has been the feminization of God. So, by portraying God as a woman Young has placed himself in the middle of the crossfire at a place where the fundamentalists feel violated. So, I’m not surprised at the hair-trigger response. The artillery was already locked and loaded. He just landed in the target zone.
I observed a lot of this when I did my master’s thesis on the church growth movement. My observation was that the principles behind the movement were generally Biblical, but the implementation frequently abandoned those Scriptural moorings. The fundamentalists often looked only at the most egregious violations and painted the whole movement with the same brush. I concluded that there must be a middle ground where one can use the principles of marketing and focused ministry without abandoning a strong doctrinal foundation. If you’re going to be a grownup and eat meat, you need to learn to spit out a few bones. If every thing is chopped and formed into a chicken McNugget, life gets pretty boring.
So, my guess is that the book is probably not as dangerous as some would have you think. Nor is it perfect answer to evangelizing the world like others may portray it. The concerns I’ve seen raised appear valid. Therefore it’s not a book I plan to use in my ministry. At the same time I doubt it’s the fearful thing some others see. However, because it is becoming so prolific, I will probably have to address the issue at some point.
Very good, Greybeard. Do you think we are better at showing what we dislike then we are at showing what we like?
Very good, Greybeard. Do you think we are better at showing what we dislike then we are at showing what we like?
I haven’t seen the kind of knee-jerk reactions to issues here that I observe in many other venues.
The idea was first presented to me in a book I read some years ago analyzing the ELCA merger of the 1980’s. (Unfortunately, I no longer have the book and I can’t remember the author or title. It was in the church library at a former parish.)
The author had been part of a group vying for control of the merger process. According to his account, they were able to gather the votes they needed to sway the convention. They combined those who were against the liberal position on abortion with anti-homosexual activists and those promoting Biblical Inerrancy. They all knew what they were against, but when the time came to present a positive unified platform, they couldn’t agree on a wide range of issues. The liberal factions, though outnumbered, put together a consolidated agenda that won the day.
Since then I have seen the truth of his observation in many venues – politics, church splits, family feuds, etc.