XXXXX,

If you’ve read me long, you know that I’ll hold to scripture before I’ll hold to man’s ideas of what scripture says or ought to say. That door swings both ways. I have no more respect for lousy orthodoxy than I have for humanist ‘new-age’ re-scripting of scripture. If it’s not the truth it stinks. For years I was profoundly disappointed in the shortcomings of men who purported to represent God. I wanted Christ but not the church. I saw it for the institution it’s become and not the Body of Christ. In His mercy, God let me hang in that position for quite awhile before He reeled me back in and let me know that if I claimed Him as my Lord I couldn’t divorce His Body, the church, no matter what I thought about the mess men have made of it. I’m committed to Him and to His Body; not to man’s doctrine, whether it’s old and accepted or new and untested.

I’m assuming you’ve read THE SHACK and not just heard about it. And I’m assuming you really read my letter all the way through without being blinded by what some people would consider as an unqualified endorsement. Some of your bullet points are valid and I agree with them. “Theologically it may have some points to argue; like the femaleness of the God character (the Holy Spirit is a woman too, Asian this time) and the lack of any hierarchy in the Godhead, or the soft sell on sin.” “Am I saying, ‘Ignore the bad theology and jump into THE SHACK like it’s scripture’? Nope. It’s not scripture, it hast its faults…”

Some of your points, in my eyes, aren’t valid. This book, from what I see was in no way ever intended to cover a broad spectrum of theology. But what I did see was Young’s treatment of the scars left from Calvary and the incomprehensible price paid for man’s redemption. As to “Belittlement of fundamentalist Christians and their doctrine”; if fundamentalist Christians were really fundamentally Christian, then I doubt books like THE SHACK or movements like the ‘emergent church’ would ever see the light of day. These people are sincere and they’re looking for answers and the fundamentalist church, in many ways, has failed to provide them. The Word hasn’t changed. If we’ve failed them we’d better look at our own adherence to it.

Hopefully you understood the point of my sub-title “Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.” Those who, in their naïveté would accept THE SHACK as gospel, I wanted to ground a little. Those who, in their hard hearted fundamentalism, threw the entire message contained in THE SHACK away as apostasy, I wanted to open their eyes a little.

After I read THE SHACK I read some of the reviews praising it and a lot of the reviews criticizing it. I also read Paul Young’s own thoughts of what has happened since THE SHACK and the backlash. A few of things I’m convinced of:

1. Paul Young loves Jesus, he’s not a Universalist and he believes that the only way to salvation is through Christ.

2. A lot of us are more threatened by someone coming against our religious traditions than we are by them coming against the truth itself.

3. The institution of the church has, in many ways failed the true church – you, me and every other believer that has put their faith in Christ.

4. Because we’re human we’re apt to institutions. If the institution of the church is an inescapable reality, we’d better make sure it doesn’t fail the true church, the Body of Christ.

5. There’s nothing wrong with the ‘fundamental’ part of fundamentalism. We’d better preserve and teach good doctrine, in love, to the entire Body of Christ. That includes those who are so wrapped up in tradition and cultural orthodoxy that there’s no room in their hearts for love and relationship; and it includes the newbies, who are starved for love and relationship, but think they have to create their own orthodoxy because they see the old one as failed.

If you and I and Paul Young are followers of the same Christ, it’s our job, according to Paul in the 4th chapter of Ephesians to travel that road together – “tell the whole truth in love.” You and I e-mailing each other doesn’t benefit the Body at all. We’re part of the same Body, not parties in opposing camps. A lot of the Body is so steeped in tradition they’ve got no room to love others in the Body, let alone the lost. A lot of the Body is so new and ignorant of good doctrine that they’ll consider anything that feels good gospel. I’d like to have this discussion in public. Would you be open to posting this discussion on the website, open for comment? It may actually show the Body and the world that we believers aren’t a series of opposing camps, but truly one in Christ.

Give it some thought and prayer. By this lengthy reply, you know that I care deeply about the weight of your response.

In Christ,

Steve Spillman

Steve: Normally I agree with your material but believe you are seriously off-base here. The Shack is horrendous. Doctrine is important and I could cite a dozen things wrong with the Shack.

The following things come to mind:
Jesus is never identified as the Christ. Where is the blood in this book?
There is no need for a savior because everything was forgiven already
No sense of judgment coming
Universalism – No Hell
Communicating with the dead is forbidden by scripture
No self-assessment by Mack thinking that what he is seeing could be deceptive
Hinduism and New Age throughout the book
Belittlement of fundamentalist Christians and their doctrine
Lack of holiness, treating of the Trinity in a very glib manner
Book of Job addresses these issues, even there the answers are elusive
I’m sure I could think of more. Yes, there is mushy love and all that stuff in the book. God is loving, gracious and forgiving. But when His call for holiness and final judgment is not only denied, but ridiculed, Mr. Young is seriously in error and I wouldn’t want to stand in his boots before the Holy God.

It is OK to have thoughts and prayers to God but when you started telling millions of people about it, you better make sure it squares with scripture. I think the Young’s concept frees people up to imagine God however they would like to do so. Create your own God. Tremendous risk in doing this.

The book is brilliant from a marketing standpoint. Everyone has a tragedy in their lives somewhere in their past. Everyone wants an explanation for why something happened. Well, scripture doesn’t promise that always in the here and now. Some people have to live with absolute terrible things, events, tragedies, health problems, unwanted divorces, death of a child, etc but they don’t go and corrrupt scripture in their quest for explanations. The answer is to trust and have faith in God that these trials are for absolute great reasons that may not be revealed until the next life.

What makes the book especially bad is it is being read by Christians who have near-zero biblical literacy and boom, all of a sudden it is tantamount to scripture. They are sucked in by this stuff. Most people want to redefine judgment and accountability to God away from their beliefs. Gives them justification for whatever choices or viewpoints they make.

Please Steve, send out a retraction of this article and tell the truth.

Respectfully,
XXXXX

I got a lot of email “you’re going down a slippery slope” too. (But I get that when I don’t use the original KJV that Paul used too LOL.)

http://tinyurl.com/56garc

If the focus of your faith is a relationship with God The Shack will be wonderful. If your focus is on legalism, then The Shack will disappoint.

“The Shack” is not the Bible. It is one man’s view of Christianity. It is moving and inspiring. He reminds me much of Andrew Murray.

The Shack encourages us to walk in God’s love (because of Christ’s sacrifice) and allow God to work through us minute by minute through out the day in every relationship.

Bottom line- Don’t worry about yesterday or fret over tomorrow. Enjoy God now. He has it all in control

As to the comment from Donna. My answer to you Donna would be, do I need to actually read the Book of Mormon to know it is direct from hell? Do I need to read the “Satanic Bible” to know that it is Satanic? That is not necessarily to say “The Shack” is from hell – but I will pose this to you. How do we open the door to Satan? By a crack? Do we just allow a “peek” at what Satan has to offer? He doesn’t always cloak himself in horror and visual evil. He cloaks himself in Oprah books and Oprah-like icons and Tom Cruise movie star looks and great music to dance to by Madonna. Etc.

I have read numerous reviews by trusted Biblical scholars/reviewers etc. and pretty much all the critics contend, “The Shack” distorts the concept of the Trinity (I am paraphrasing). That was all I needed to hear.

I think there are countless other ways to receive the exact same message that the feel-good “The Shack” has to offer from Biblically sound sources. If you are personally strong enough as an adult Christian to read something that distorts the truth of the gospel, I am by no means judging you. That is your personal choice Donna and frankly none of my business. But Steve very openly and willingly invites our views on what he writes, so I offered my views on the matter. He graciously allowed me to air them and even more graciously discussed my views. That is a different matter.

My very real objection is as I said before – the cult I was in only taught a very tiny percentage of garbage and it was that tiny percentage that kept me from a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn’t take much to take us away from Christ. Even the elect. The Bible talks about even the elect being fooled. Who are we to say it CAN’T be by “The Shack?” It’s not the truth of the gospel, therefore it COULD be that “The Shack” that COULD lead even the elect astray.

Yet still, it’s one thing for seasoned Christians to read that book (as I read the Book of Mormon without fear it would “convert” me. I read it to be better able to witness to Mormons). However, for unseasoned or weakened Christians and especially most importantly people who are still soul-searching – I firmly stand by the fact that the book can be very, very dangerous. And that is why I took issue with Steve for giving it a “thumbs up.” I however respect Steve very much, respect his writings and really appreciate his allowing this discussion.

I remember a wonderful Pastor, one of the greatest Army Chaplains I’ve ever known ( I am an Army wife of almost 29 years) who said, “Sometimes we can be so open-minded our brains fall out.” He’s a good ole boy from Mississippi and I’ve always loved that saying of his!

My caution is, be careful and hold on to your brains. In a manner of speaking.

Thanks Steve for the defense of this book; I found it VERY moving and inspiring. I gave 12 books away, and some of those recipients gave books away as well.

This “blasphamous (sp.?)” book has deeply touched many individuals that have lost loved ones, and those with addiction problems. If you don’t like this book, get over yourselves and appreciate the fact that it HAS touched lives for the positive. If God can use a donkey….why not a fictional book?

In Jesus,
Steve

You’ve both brought up a great point. I’ve been around the theological block a few times and it was easy for me to discard the theological dross in THE SHACK and keep the message I saw as lacking in a lot of our fundamentalist tradition. That is the message of love, relationship and forgiveness.
It might not be so easy for babes in Christ or those outside seeking answers to separate the wheat from the chaff. If I was too short on what I saw wrong and too long on what I saw right I apologize.
I have a couple of concerns; those who are so stuck in their traditions and orthodoxy that they’ve got no room left for love, relationship and forgiveness, and those seeking or new to Christ who will swallow anything they’re given if it tastes good.
You guys, by now, know me. And you know that I tend to beat on the first group and ease up on the second. God’s done a tremendous work on my spirit just to bring me back to an active life in the Body. It seems He’s not quite done yet.
I’ve just finished responding to an extensive and detailed e-mail along the same lines (a little more critical I’m afraid) as your comments. In my response I asked for permission to include the exchange in the posts to this site. Like Paul and Carol said, we’re obligated to “tell the truth in love” (that’s the whole truth).
With your love and patience, I’d like to spend more time on this; for the benefit of both the crusty fundies and the naive newbies.
In Jesus,
Steve

When I was in the cult I was in, I would venture a guess that about 75 or 80 or even 90% of what was taught was Biblically accurate. It was that small, small % that screwed me up and warped my concept of the Godhead. Anything at all that distorts, even in a TINY sense the Biblical truths about the Trinity is evil and dangerous. Satan wants us to be ambigious and “fluid” about the knowleddge of the Godhead because if we don’t worship Jesus Chirst IN TRUTH, then we don’t worship the Lord God who is our ONLY Savior.

I sincerely, and deeply, with all my heart worshiped a non-trinitarian god when I was in the cult I was in. But I worshiped a myth, I didn’t know nor did I have a personal relationship with the ONE true living Lord and God who was and is the lover of my soul. If we don’t have that, then we don’t know God and if we don’t know God we are eternally doomed. It was just that one small thing that cult taught me that made the biggest and most damaging difference in my life.

Next you might be trying to convince us, “If you want to know a God that makes you feel good and that can give you warm fuzzies, read Oprah’s book about god.” Where is the line drawn with all due repect Mr. Spillman? The line is drawn SMACK DAB IN THE BIBLE. If it’s not Biblically accurate – it’s a waste of our time and worse, it’s a waste of God’s precious time because we’re reading garbage and God-forbid, believing it. Maybe solid believers won’t be swayed by the inaccuracies in that book, but as Tomi illustrated, others may not be so blessed and be tempted to belive in “The Shack” and the author’s skewed version of God. Or worse, take that “knowledge” and land in a cult because they don’t know the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Just like I did.

I think you have unfortunately missed the mark on this one because the book made you (perhaps?) “feel” good. I pray you will reconsider your assesment. But if not – may the Lord bless you and keep you regardless.