PTM WEEKLY UPDATE -- MAY 19, 2008
Greg answers more accusations about The Shack
Q. I heard something alarming on a Christian radio program today and I felt I had to write. This book called The Shack has blatant heresies in its text and yet it is promoted on your site week after week.
For example, the character Jesus says he's only the best way to salvation. He also says that a person doesn't have to repent to come to him. The one representing the Father claims that there's no hierarchy in the Trinity. Christ clearly stated that his will was only to obey the Father. We also know that when all is put under Christ's feet, he'll submit himself to the Father.
It's bad enough that the Father is portrayed by an African-American woman and the Holy Spirit by an Asian woman but the subtle new age lies are so cleverly disguised that only the elect would know it was rubbish and highly toxic. Just because people are raving about it doesn't make it right. Please stop promoting this blasphemous book. We who listen to Plain Truth radio and attend Christianity Without the Religion seek Bible truths, not new age lies for itching ears. I'm very disappointed that you folks are promoting such a heretical book.
A. We are delighted you attend with a discriminating ear, and that you don't necessarily agree with everything we say. All we ask is that you base you faith in and on Jesus, not on us, or any other human being for that matter.
You seem to agree with this Christian radio program's evaluation, which, according to you, says that The Shack is doctrinally deficient. You ask that we reconsider the promotion of The Shack. Again, I appreciate your right to disagree. We all have that right. I have that right to disagree with the Christian commentator you cite, and in this respect I do.That doesn't mean I disrespect him or demean him, merely that I disagree. We can disagree without dividing (though some within Christendom seem not to be able to do so).We have received many comments about The Shack both from scholars (see the endorsements in The Shack itself) as well as lay persons -- and of course we have received negative comments such as yours. In our May 5th PTM Weekly Update we published a favorable review of The Shack -- not by anyone affiliated with PTM in any way.
Paul advised the Corinthian church that they should not become followers of himself, Apollos, Cephas, etc -- but of Christ. We accept your critical comments, and if you decide that some other ministry or pastor is more Christ-centered, biblically accurate and grace-based, then that will be your decision. I proclaim Christ not because some human teaches Christ to me, but because God's revealed Word, and his indwelling presence in Jesus leads and guides me. We -- here at PTM -- are who we are -- we will not compromise the gospel as we understand it, believe it and proclaim it. We do not follow any human -- we follow Christ. Faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone.
**********************
Q. I have recently been getting your e-mail letters and a trial version of your magazine because a friend pointed me in your direction. I have to say that I don't agree with all your teachings (which is good, because we should only agree 100% with the Bible), especially your stance on Hell, but for the most part I am finding your stuff interesting. I have seen lots of advertisements from you for the book, The Shack and have wondered about its content. If this book has as many problems theologically as noted in one commentary I read on the book, then I suggest you discontinue support for it.
A. At your request, as a part of serving you, I read the online comments to which you referred. I found nothing of alarm whatsoever -- I did find that the author who critiqued the book found that his own religious traditions were challenged, and that he was uncomfortable at times. However, the critique offers opinions and innuendos, nothing at all substantial that would cause me to be concerned that the author of The Shack has strayed from biblical truth, as historically understood and accepted by basic, core, orthodox teachings of our faith. Nothing at all that would conflict with essential teaching -- perhaps non-essential, but those issues alone, though they may differ with the religious view that one may have been taught and in fact continues to espouse, do not, of and by themselves, make The Shack worthy of demonization.
The Shack is fictional -- but theologically accurate -- it is bold, and at times irreligious, but Christ-centered and based in God's grace. It must be understood and read within the fictional genre chosen by the author -- failure to provide a critique that does not do so is to to an injustice to the author, a brother in Christ. I am delighted PTM has been and continues to be able to serve you -- and I would not think that you would agree with us 100% -- but then, that, in our humble opinion is not because we differ on biblical truth, but on its interpretation -- which, last time I checked, has been an issue with Christians for many centuries.
Q2. Thank you for your kind response. Unfortunately, I have just read some more about the book which leads me to seeing it as being more problematic as you feel it is. Here's the latest from Lighthouse Trails Research. (my comments continue at the end of the review):A2. At no time have we said that this book was perfect (if perfection is the premise from which the reviews you have supplied me with argue and reason, then I would be delighted to talk about any number of flawed "Christian" books -- non-fiction and fiction -- that have been absolutely proven to be erroneous, but still occupy places of honor in many pastoral settings and libraries.). So, our advice -- if The Shack offends, don't read it. It is not the kingdom of God.
I have yet to read any critique which abstains from techniques such as guilt by association, name calling, etc. in an attempt to discredit The Shack. Folks are puzzled by this book's challenge to religious convention and the status quo -- and as I recall reading, religious folks were also puzzled by Jesus' failure to embrace their cherished traditions and a priori assumptions.
Q3. I guess I see the problem as more than upsetting traditions. When one has God appearing as three personages in a novel, that smacks of Mormonism. Making God into a feminine person violates Scripture. Having God say "she" doesn't punish sin is also unbiblical. Claiming that the Great Spirit of the American Indian is God is blasphemous. To have this "God" proclaim that He intentionally made the Bible ambiguous is aberrational to say the least. But you want to compare all this with Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their traditions. It is not a matter of not reading something that offends, rather it is a matter of supposed Christian shepherds promoting false teachings (or not even noticing them!). I dare say that the majority of what is sold in Christian book stores is aberrational and often downright heretical -- those places are minefields. It's not about minor flaws, it is about doctrinal error, which, from the reviews I've read (and the one I just sent did not have all those problems you state below) seems to be the main problem with The Shack.
There's a saying that people can be involved in "deception by investment;" that is, you have such an investment in the subject matter that you allow yourself to be deceived because it would reflect on yourself if you acknowledged the problems. I humbly suggest that your involvement with this book has led you to this condition.
I would really like to see how you justify the teachings as described in the various reviews.
A3. 1) You need far more study about both Trinitarian theology and Mormonism -- The Shack doesn't smack of Mormonism. Name-calling must be verifiable -- in this case your allegation is not.2) Making God into a feminine Person is a construct that the Bible allows for -- God is neither male or female -- that is the testimony of Scripture.
3) "Punishment" of sin is a definition -- an arbitrary and somewhat in-house discussion within Christendom -- i.e. what do we mean by punishment -- how much, how long -- is this term denominationally defined or biblically defined?
4) What you say is blasphemous is not the intent of the author, however you may be predisposed to believe what you assert (or someone else has told you). As for our "investment" in this book -- I assure you that you are once again in error. We do not depend on monies made by our promotion of this book to finance our ministry.
RETURN TO PTM WEEKLY UPDATE CONTENTS PAGECopyright © 2008 Plain Truth Ministries -- Worldwide.
