Tim Challies Review of the Good and Beautiful God

I forewarned you the other 24-hour interval that I had lots to say about The Shack so be prepared for this review to accept a wee bit of time. I know that in this day and age people like things short and sweet simply the other side of that is that in this mean solar day and age people are apt to say quite a lot while thinking quite a footling. Sometimes it's important to sit and really hash a volume (or the idea represented therein) out thoroughly. The Shack demands nothing less considering of the rather huge implications information technology has for the Christian culture.

I would put this book in the same category as Bluish Similar Jazz (come across my review hither) in that information technology's become highly pop and influential within the church building and therefore demands that we have note of it. Information technology'south truthful that I resent the demand that I read this book because I don't think it'southward worth reading. I would really rather exist spending my time reading something else. Instead, I felt similar I must take the time to read this book so that I could have the time to brand a proper response to what I idea (and discovered) it was. Then, since "you" (the generic reading public) deem this book worthy of a good read, written report and even a screen play (!), I retaliate with a long review. So there.

Earlier striking "publish" to this review, I should likewise state that I followed up my reading of The Shack by re-reading various scripture passages (some of which I take noted below) and have begun to read The Subject of Spiritual Discernment, by Tim Challies. I made x pages of notes, had many personal conversations near the book and accept generally been irritated. I hope to write that irritation out of my system (to some degree) with this review. I'chiliad probably posting this review as well rapidly, really. However, I have to let this volume become and I'm hoping if I finish this review I tin do just that.

The principal reason for my annoyance is this:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.* Plough away from godless churr and the opposing ideas of what is falsely chosen knowledge, which some accept professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. i Timothy half-dozen:twenty-21

*the gospel

I believe this volume is total of senseless arguments that distract from the truth of scripture and Who God Is, rather than cartoon people towards it/Him. Information technology is as if a 2 year old were insisting that a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies (for breakfast, lunch and dinner no less!) was entirely good for you and appropriate. While I can certainly concur that they might wish it to be so, I tin reasonably argue that that is not actually the example and if they eat naught but chocolate chip cookies they will endure in life and die a premature death. Still, the two year old still insists and nosotros're forced to become on arguing that you need to at to the lowest degree pop a vitamin in every at present and again to maintain a decent residue. This book, The Shack, is insisting that chocolate chip cookies are adequate. Much of scripture is outright ignored if not manipulated for Immature's personal purposes of which I know not what they are. Once more Christians have been handed a book which demands a firm answer.

While I do sympathise that life is non e'er black and white and there are many Christians who do view some gray, that does not hateful that all the "gray matter" is worthy of consideration. Some books are tolerable in their being and it is piece of cake to take them or exit them. I am going to argue that The Shack is not one of those books. Rather it is a book that demands a firm answer from it's reader. Either y'all concur or y'all exercise non concur. Information technology is important to know why you lot feel the manner that yous practise almost this book. This volume demands that you be discerning, to weed out the fact from the fiction as you look closely at what Young has to say.

Is it a bad thing to examine something to determine whether or not it is right or wrong? Many would think that awfully judgmental. However, Solomon himself asked God for the ability to exist discerning. He prayed, "Requite your retainer therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil..." (1 Kings three:9a) Certain, he was asking for help in governing a whole people. Our chore is no less daunting in that we need to learn to govern ourselves and those whom God has placed in our care (i.e., spouses, children and dependents). God didn't make Solomon to be a unique man in existence the only one who would exist required to be wise. We all have the responsibility. (Heb. 5:14) William Immature is simply presenting the states with an opportunity to practise. For that, I suppose, he is deserving of some thanks.

The virtually notable person to have taken a stand up against The Shack (that I have discovered) is Tim Challies. He took event with a few fallacies in Young'southward book, almost notably Immature's "use" (and defendant misrepresentation of) the Trinity. I don't desire to re-argue his points (considering he did a fine job) and if y'all are curious, you can read what Tim Challies had to say hither. I would encourage yous to do so, particularly if you accept already read The Shack. I KNOW that people who practise not hold with me will tell me that I'chiliad too close minded and/or that I didn't sympathize The Shack and/or that they felt very moved and healed in the reading of it. Well, I knew that none of that would be true for me and I read it anyway to "effort to empathise." If yous would like to render the favor of attempted understanding, go read Challies' article and don't comment on it until you've read it. Information technology'south the to the lowest degree you can exercise. Notation: I have not said anything at all about The Shack until I read it. You tin check my archives. I kept my opinions to myself. Withal, I no longer feel the need.

There are a great many quotes from The Shack that I would love to share and dissect. Equally I said, I wrote out ten pages worth of quotes and notes on the topic. If I shared everything, you might think I was writing my own book. (Yous might think that anyway.) Instead of belaboring the indicate, I'll focus on the two topics I institute the most of import (after the point well-nigh the misuse of the Trinity; refer to Challies, please).

Bespeak of contention #ane:

Young is subtle in his misuse of scripture. So subtle in fact that I think unless you intend to read into this book deeply, you will probable miss some of his pick of words and skim over them as existence "unimportant."

I example (I have several) is the following:

Young sets upwards a scene were the god character (I'thousand just going to proceed god lowercase hither because I want to.) has made a succulent dinner to exist shared and enjoyed by the Trinity and Mack (the principal graphic symbol). The grapheme of Jesus is conveying the meal dish to the table and drops it, breaking the dish and ruining the dinner. The god character laughingly forgives Jesus, calling him "greasy fingers." (pages 104-105) The post-obit paragraph appears, relating what Mack idea of these events:

"He knew it didn't affair whose fault it was -- the mess from some bowl had been broken, that a dish that had been planned would not be shared. Obviously, what was truly of import here was the love they had for one another and the fullness it brought them." (pages 104-105)

On the surface it only looks like Young made Jesus clumsy in guild to show God'southward forgiveness of sins and to encourage u.s.a. to overlook one some other's faults for the sake of perfect fellowship with 1 another.

Still, in Hebrews seven we read that Jesus, our High Priest, is ". . .ane who is holy, blameless, pure, set autonomously from sinners, exalted above the heavens." My disturbance is caused by Immature'southward use of the give-and-take "mistake" in the to a higher place quoted paragraph. It implies that there was fault to be laid at the anxiety of someone but that ultimately it didn't affair. But at that place was fault to brainstorm with that belonged to someone. I'll say information technology again - Immature implies error was to exist had, but was selected to exist ignored for the sake of love. But Jesus is above mistake. He is pure. He is blameless. Scripture says so.

There are a few more examples in the book (utilize of the word "impossible" when it comes to talking our ability to following the x Commandments on page 202) just this is just i instance that I will highlight to say that I'm bothered that Young weaved in little remarks all throughout this book that are destructive and assail the very essence of Who God Is. It is frequently so slight equally to become unnoticeable unless yous are reading to understand Young. Since most people, I would assume, are reading this for entertainment purposes, they are going to be defenseless in this trivial trap which is something I find repulsive and therefore I find this book rather dangerous.

In Challies' book, The Bailiwick of Spiritual Discernment, he talks about the White Witch in Narnia and how "she could brand things look like they aren't." Challies quotes Thomas Howard, (every bit quoted in Devin Brown, Inside Narnia, folio 65) saying:

"Information technology is a counterfeit, exactly like the existent matter just a cheat . . . Evil can only parody goodness, it cannot invent new forms of existent beauty and joy. That is why in fairy tales you accept to be aware of attractive disguises -- overnice old crones selling apples in the woods, say, or angels of light."

(Or jolly African American women posing as God Himself and blistering lots of yummy food in a cozy shack kitchen? I'm just asking.)

Again, we are supposed to be in a abiding do of distinguishing betwixt adept and evil. (Hebrews 5:14) And what is evil? Things which stand directly opposed to scripture should be attacked. Nosotros have a calling to protect the gospel which is entrusted to us (one Tim 6:20, 2 Timothy ane:fourteen). Information technology'south a non-optional chore.

That brings me to my Point of Contention #ii:

The Holy Spirit character is explaining to Mack that he is no longer under the law. Mack asks, "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?" to which the Holy Spirit character comments: "Yes. In Jesus you lot are not under any law. All things are lawful." (folio 203)

"Y'all can't be serious! Yous're messing with me again," moaned Mack. "Kid," interrupted "God the Male parent", "you own't heard nothin' yet."
"Mackenzie," "the Holy Spirit" continued, "those who are afraid of liberty are those who cannot trust us to alive in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a annunciation of independence, a way of keeping command."
"Is that why we similar the police force so much -- to requite us some control?" asks Mack.
"It is much worse than that," resumed "the Holy Spirit", "It grants you lot the power to judge others and feel superior to them. You lot believe you are living to a higher standard than those yous gauge. Enforcing rules, peculiarly in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might call back, I take a great fondness for doubtfulness. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to charge." (folio 203)

This about fries my brain (and not in a good way).

Matthew 5:17 translated in diverse ways (just to brand this as clear equally possible):

"Do non think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come up to destroy them, merely to fulfill them. . ." ISV

"Do not remember that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." NAS

"Think not that I am come up to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, only to fulfill." KJV

"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside only to make them come true." God's Discussion translation

Deuteronomy 5, specifically looking at poesy 22:

These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud vocalism to your whole assembly at that place on the mount from out of the burn down, the deject and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on ii rock tablets and gave them to me.

God gave the laws to Moses for us to follow. Furthermore, He came down on world and fulfilled them all perfectly. He did non remove the law, He fulfilled it and lived the law perfectly. He gives us His Holy Spirit to aid united states of america to follow the law.

At present, it is truthful that Immature said that police force was given so that we could encounter our own sinfulness and need for a Savior. I agree with that 150%. But I cannot believe or hold with him in saying that information technology now only exists because of me for my own condolement in judging other people. Nowhere in Scripture take I been given reason to believe that the only reason there are still rules to follow is so that I can call up hateful thoughts about my neighbour. (I was given another rule by Jesus Himself equally to how I am to treat my neighbour, btw.)

Simply let'south just be practical. Young comes across as anti-establishment and makes the declaration that God is forced to operate in human government and with human establishments because we are forcing him to out of our ain sinful natures. (This ignores the fact that if you read 2 Samuel and Just 2 Samuel you will discover that God actually appointed/anointed David every bit male monarch over State of israel and established a man regime Himself.) If we lived in a perfect world, like, say, Heaven, nosotros would NOT have need of rules. All the same, hither on globe nosotros do. It'southward merely the manner information technology works. And it's not a bad affair that it works that way. We are specifically instructed to obey and honor our parents, submit to church government and again to governing authorities (read Romans) in then much equally it is Biblically acceptable to do and so. Simply Young implies that we should buck all systems of authority and if we did we would be more enlightened humans, non-judgmental and e'er loving and kind.

Young implies (if not outright says) that the law only exists to point out sin in others only that God is above the law and never references it personally. Young appears to believe the law is outdated and all need for law follows accommodate. It's similar maxim that cerise lights and terminate signs simply exists so that law officers will have a reason to give out tickets. There is a need for stop lights and stop signs (for the public safety these days) just as there is a demand for God's law. It helps keep us in line. It refines us and shapes and molds us. When it comes to God'southward law, keeping it makes u.s.a. more than holy, just as He is holy. (1 Peter 1:15-16) Following traffic laws not merely helps to proceed you alive, just others also. (For that matter, the aforementioned could exist said of God's laws.)

I'll stop.

It is Important to read into things. It is especially important to read into books like The Shack. It is Not merely entertainment. It is subversive and distracting and therefore not worth the time of day. Information technology is a passing fad and it volition fall by the wayside. Information technology cannot survive considering it is non truth and, in the cease, it is the truth that will remain standing. Just that doesn't remove our duty to read, know, understand and obey to fulfill our responsibility of protecting the gospel.

I'm truly pitiful that this volume exists.

******
A note on commenting on this post. Plain I have a strong stance about this book and no doubt you practice likewise, be it pro or con. My stance is my opinion and I believe it to exist well thought out. Perhaps yous practice not concord. That's ok. You can leave a negative comment. I'm prepared for them. I probable will not respond to any or all of them, so don't military camp on the comment line hoping I'll exercise so. I've spoken my piece which is all I wanted to do. Feel free to do the same. I merely might non (probably won't) comment back.
******

pearcesyll1993.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.readingtoknow.com/2008/10/

Share this post