{"id":58,"date":"2008-08-31T03:28:59","date_gmt":"2008-08-31T10:28:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/?p=58"},"modified":"2009-07-08T08:37:51","modified_gmt":"2009-07-08T15:37:51","slug":"the-shack-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/gods-purpose\/the-shack-part-ii","title":{"rendered":"THE SHACK, PART II"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> (I Corinthians 13:1-2)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m kind of afraid to use a title like that. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m afraid that some of my readers are so smart they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll know what the entire letter says just by reading the title. I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know I had readers that smart, but apparently I do.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, for my sake, you gotta make me a promise right now. Promise me you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll read the whole letter before making up your mind about what I said. I know, I know. I go on and on and it seems like sometimes I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll never finish, but you can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t always get the whole picture until you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve read me all the way through.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m being a smart aleck. But it seems that I started a little fire with last week\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s letter and a lot of the heat, from what I gather, came from folks who either didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t read the book I was talking about or didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t read the letter they were reading (or both) when they got all fired up.<\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t get mad and delete me just yet. Remember, you promised to read this<\/em> letter all the way through.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the upside, this little controversy has really increased traffic on the <\/span>www.gotpotential.org<\/span><\/a> blog. You can go there to read everybody\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s comments, good and bad.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the down side, three people \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcunsubscribed\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em> to the Purpose Weekly letter because my \u00e2\u20ac\u0153comments have become too far out of doctrine.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On the upside, in the past I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve had a lot more people than that \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcunsubscribe\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em> out of sheer boredom. The subscription doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t cost anything and the price of gas has gone down, so financially I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m a little ahead.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m sorry. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m being a smart aleck again. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll stick to business for the rest of the letter.<\/span><\/p>\n

First of all \u00e2\u20ac\u201c If you haven\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t read last week\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s letter, you won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know what I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m talking about so when you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re done here go to <\/span>www.gotpotential.org<\/span><\/a> and read \u00e2\u20ac\u0153THE SHACK- In Defense of William P. Young.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> We got a lot<\/em> of reaction from that letter; good and bad. And it was quick too. People were commenting right away; like they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d already made up their minds in advance. I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know that my letter really influenced anybody who commented.<\/span><\/p>\n

This all began as a result of one of my readers asking, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Where is God when something unbearably tragic happens and why would a God who loves me allow something like that to happen in the first place?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> I wrote last week\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s letter and used William P. (Paul) Young\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s book, THE SHACK as one man\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s attempt at answering the question.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, up in the right column (that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s where I give hints about what the letter is about because I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m afraid you won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t read the whole thing) I said, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153You’ll love it or you’ll hate it \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> I hit that one right on the money.<\/span><\/p>\n

We send Purpose Weekly<\/em> out to 276 people, then to the blog site. I wish it was more but that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s what it is. Out of the 276, four wrote in and told me how disappointed they were that I \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcendorsed\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em> THE SHACK; three others unsubscribed out of the same disappointment. You gotta hand it to the four who wrote in; they didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t unsubscribe. Good for you guys.<\/span><\/p>\n

Four wrote in and told me how wonderful it was that I endorsed THE SHACK and how it changed their lives and the lives of others. I only received one new subscriber that \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcloved\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em> my \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcendorsement.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em> (Note to people who love what they think I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m saying on the blog \u00e2\u20ac\u201c subscribe to the letter! It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s very encouraging to me.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Here\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s my problem, I liked the book, I used it as an illustration; I just didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know I was endorsing it. And I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m almost positive I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t say anything about adding it to Holy Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul Young addressed pain and suffering and forgiveness and wholeness better than I could. Some of the parts even made me cry (a little caveat here: a lot of things make me cry; I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m either spiritually sensitive or slightly unbalanced, take your pick).<\/span><\/p>\n

A lot of what was in the book made me shake my head. Paul broke down barriers and stereotypes about how we regard our relationship with God, but he did it in such a way that made him run right up to the edge of heresy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s cliff. Maybe he even stepped over a few times.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not endorsing heresy.<\/span><\/p>\n

(Okay, this is for the 265 people who really didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have an issue with last week\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s letter, or loved it or hated it and didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have the time, interest or whatever to write in: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153heresy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> means \u00e2\u20ac\u0153holding of unorthodox opinion.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Orthodox\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> we covered last week; it means \u00e2\u20ac\u0153following traditional doctrine.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m on the side on \u00e2\u20ac\u0153following traditional doctrine.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> Unless, of course, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wrong. Some of what Paul Young said was wrong. A lot of what Paul Young said was right.<\/span><\/p>\n

All you guy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s who jumped me for pointing that out \u00e2\u20ac\u201c I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m asking you to check your own \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcorthodoxy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em>. Some of what you said was right. If you had really read my letter you would have seen that I agree with you. Was some of what you said wrong?<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s my question.<\/span><\/p>\n

*****<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The first letter I received was from someone who actually read THE SHACK, thanking me for defending the book. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m pretty sure she didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually read my letter though, she wrote me two minutes after I posted it. Evelyn Wood couldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t read one of my letters in two minutes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first letter I received blasting the book and the author came in about an hour and a half later, so I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m pretty sure my letter didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t prompt any further research or consideration of the subject on his part.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not going to reproduce his entire letter here or my entire response; Purpose Weekly is long enough without that. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll post both to <\/span>www.gotpotential.org<\/span><\/a> in their entirety, so you can read them there. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll just give you the high points here:<\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Steve:\u00c2\u00a0 Normally I agree with your material\u00c2\u00a0but believe you are seriously off-base here.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 The Shack is horrendous.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m assuming you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve read THE SHACK and not just heard about it. And I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m assuming you really read my letter all the way through without being blinded by what some people would consider as an unqualified endorsement.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Jesus 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153This 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s treatment of the scars left from Calvary and the incomprehensible price paid for man\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s redemption.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Universalism – No Hell.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Paul Young loves Jesus, he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not a Universalist and he believes that the only way to salvation is through Christ.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> (If XXXXX had taken the time and effort to meet Paul Young or read his letters, he would have known this. But there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s no sense in giving another Christian the benefit of the doubt.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Communicating 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Some of your bullet points are valid and I agree with them. \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcTheologically [THE SHACK] 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/span><\/em> (Honestly, some of his bullet points I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t get. Hinduism? I was beginning to think he was reading from the annotated and expanded version of THE SHACK and I only had the cheap Sam\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Wholesale Club condensed paperback version.)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Belittlement of fundamentalist Christians and their doctrine.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153If fundamentalist Christians were really fundamentally Christian, then I doubt books like THE SHACK or movements like the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcemergent church\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 would ever see the light of day. These people are sincere and they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re looking for answers and the fundamentalist church, in many ways, has failed to provide them. The Word hasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t changed. If we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve failed them we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d better look at our own adherence to it.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And my personal favorite:<\/span><\/p>\n

XXXXX:<\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Yes, there is mushy love and all that stuff in the book.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Steve: <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nothing wrong with the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcfundamental\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 part of fundamentalism. We\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d better preserve and teach good doctrine, in love<\/span>, to the entire Body of Christ. That includes those who are so wrapped up in tradition and cultural orthodoxy that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s no room in their hearts for love and relationship<\/span>; 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/em>(As for me and my house, we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll stick with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153mushy love and all that stuff.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll end this letter how I ended that letter.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Hopefully you understood the point of my sub-title \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThrowing the Baby out with the Bathwater.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/span><\/span> Those who, in their na\u00c3\u00afvet\u00c3\u00a9 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153If you and I and Paul Young are followers of the same Christ, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s our job, according to Paul in the 4th<\/sup> chapter of Ephesians to travel that road together \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153tell the whole truth in love.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d You and I e-mailing each other doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t benefit the Body at all. We\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re part of the same Body, not parties in opposing camps. A lot of the Body is so steeped in tradition they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll consider anything that feels good gospel. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t a series of opposing camps, but truly one in Christ.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

XXXXX hasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t gotten back to me about making this discussion public. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m going to take that as a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcyes\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em> (I Corinthians 13:13)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In Love,<\/span><\/p>\n

Steve Spillman<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[634,438,134,6,277,11,16,186,334,459,276,7,540],"tags":[221,220,219,102,218,200],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":334,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58\/revisions\/334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gotpotential.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}