Comments on: Un-SHACK-led / A Review of: THE SHACK

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:20:25 +0000

I appreciate your laying it on the line. I wonder why I never felt that I was loved by the Christians in my life. The Word that was preached meant nothing because I didn’t see it lived out in anybody, to the degree I needed simple recognition of the pain and confusion I carried. No Christian reached out. It seemed Satan was more attentive because I was so vulnerable to be deceived, having no point of reference of God’s gift of love.
How does a person in that situation find his needs met through God?

By: Reid Ferguson

Reid Ferguson — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:45:11 +0000

Dear Kathy – Thanks so much for stopping and commenting. And I am genuinely grateful you found some comfort in the book. I am always reminded of a statement I heard a good brother make some time ago: God is very capable of drawing straight lines with very crooked sticks. So I am completely confident that the Lord can use this as much as I am certain its actual teachings are sadly heretical in many ways.

But because some good CAN be gotten from it in God’s mercy, is not a reason to justify it in its dreadful errors. Men dying of thirst are known to drink their own urine in desperation – and it may at times even save their lives. But this would be no recommendation of the practice for sure. This is a difficult call I know.

I do know from an interview with the author that he clearly wrote the book to explain his own theological understanding to his children. He meant it to be theological, even if some do not read it that way. I did.

I do sympathize with the pain of what you must have endured through what you have suffered. But I am also convinced that truth, the truth about God, His love and mercy and grace in His Word, and the work of the Holy Spirit can fully (and not just temporarily) meet those needs in their fullest. May you find that soon. Blessings.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 04:04:24 +0000

Through its caricature of God as a refuge and nurturing protector, the book provided temporary relief from emotional pain resulting from long term abuse. It provided a sense that God sees my pain and His desire is for it to heal, as a parent feels anguish when a child has severe pain
I really think this book provides acknowledgement of the deep needs for love, acceptance and understanding that emotional or sexual trauma victims carry, which is exactly what the author experienced and where he is coming from.
It cannot be understood by those who have not experienced it. It is a permanent change in the brain that cannot be healed.
You have written a careful, thoughtful analysis. I see the potential danger if one were to believe God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were accurately depicted in the story.
I did not see it as theological truth. I saw each aspect of God contributing to healing.
I could not identify with his portrayal of Jesus. I did like his example of joyful fellowship between the three God figures being an example for us.
I have never been able to receive healing in the church body. It is difficult to carry a defect that is undetectable, that creates a barrier between human relationships, and still try to relate to other Christians joyfully. This is very common with abuse victims.
Doctrine does not remove the pain and fear, or renew my trust in men on this earth. It only gives hope for the future.
It hurts me to hear that something that makes me feel relief and love is wrong.
I guess you can compare this book’s effect to the novel “The DeVinci Code”, that led some Christians astray.
On a similar note I thought the movie “The Passion” was way off base. It seemed to promote guilt over the horror of how Jesus was treated as a means to accepting Christ as Savior.

By: Reid Ferguson

Reid Ferguson — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:47:07 +0000

Thanks so much for taking the time to stop and especially to comment. It is most appreciated.

By: bography

bography — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:03:59 +0000

I’m very grateful for this review in which you show such a firm grasp of biblical truth. One of my “men-of-the-cloth” friends recommended I read the Shack. I did read excerpts, which I found it so contrary to the Bible. For myu friend, Christianity was about relationships (and realtionships ands relationships.

The following often go together: 1. strong emaphasis on human relationships , 2. rejection of biblical inerrancy (Thus says the Lord of the OT is a definite no no, 3. universal salvation, 4. emphasis on “free” will AND 5. rejection of penal substitution.

If you have the time/inclination you may want to read my “Love, the enemy?” which is related to your review.
http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/love-the-enemy-reconciliation-in-the-bible/

Raphael (Onedaringjew)

By: Meanwhile, back at “The Shack” « ResponsiveReiding

Meanwhile, back at “The Shack” « ResponsiveReiding — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:12:55 +0000

By: Reid Ferguson

Reid Ferguson — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:27:22 +0000

Hey Rick – it was so good to be with everybody over the weekend, and especially to spend a little more time with you, and to get to know your sister. Bonus!

Thanks for the encouraging words. They ARE appreciated.

Blessings brother.

By: Rick Campbell

Rick Campbell — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:49:58 +0000

Reid,

Aaahh…what is truth? Thank you for relaxing your sphincter long enough to preach from Revelation (through your tears) about the Heaven that the Lord’s presence and beauty will fill and in which He will personally wipe away all of my tears. No more death, pain, mourning, or sin. And thanks for not making it up – that would have provided no comfort at all. Oh, and thanks for not using any big words this time.

By: Judith klick

Judith klick — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:50:58 +0000

Reid,
I have been amazed at the number of Christians that are recommending this book, especially to new believers. I am surprised that the Christian community hasn’t been more vocal about it.Thanks for putting light on this heretical writing. Judy

By: Reid Ferguson

Reid Ferguson — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:30:21 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, reading and leaving your comments George. I have no idea how you may have come to assume something regarding my intellectualism, education or the health and state of my rectal health. Perhaps the matter for another time – eh?

What is important, is that God has chosen to communicate about Himself in very precise and identifiable ways. Creation gives us natural or general revelation. But it is in the Bible and consummately in the person and work of Christ Jesus that He communicates regarding Himself most precisely. Whether or not one likes The Shack on one level is irrelevant. How truthful The Shack is when measured by the divine revelation of Scripture is the real issue. And, it is (IMHO) the key issue. The Scripture alone is our means of weighing and measuring all truth. Abandon that, and all you have left is rank subjectivism.

The Shack is problematic chiefly for this one reason – it denies the direct communication of God about Himself and the ways HE desires to be perceived and understood. In other cases it imagines a whole new set of communications. Hence it seeks to provide its own measure of revelation. This, must be flatly rejected if our authority is to rest in what God has said, and not in what man has imagined.

I have no problem with challenging man-made “religion”. In fact, that is exactly what I am doing by criticizing The Shack. I am challenging Paul Young’s self-originated religion, in favor of God’s revealed revelation in His Word. That is the only safe place.