PTM WEEKLY UPDATE -- MAY 19, 2008
The Shack -- deceived by a counterfeit Jesus?
Q. I have just read a review (or was it a hatchet job?) of the book The Shack which PTM has recommended. This review says that The Shack is just a bunch of new-age propaganda, and that it isn't even close to being the biblical truth of the gospel.
A. We have been asked similar questions by several people. I have read the "review" to which you have reference, and, since you requested my thoughts, I now offer them:
1) Having read this diatribe (hatchet job) which the author prefers to call a "review," it seems to me that the author is uncomfortable with something which is challenging his view of a God of "sovereignty" and "authority" -- I can only conclude that The Shack is conflicting with his religiously formed and accepted views. Reading The Shack has given this person a severe case of cognitive dissonance, and it seems his cure is to discredit the messenger. It's not a new tactic -- when confronted with a challenge to the status quo -- if something rocks the boat -- then discredit the source.
2) The author says that he is appalled that God the Father is depicted as a woman in The Shack -- as he says, a female "God." He limits his shock to this challenge to what I must assume to be his gender-specific view of God, for he doesn't (at least in writing) take issue issue with the African-American race (in whose "colors" the Father is also depicted). Does the fact that God is depicted as an African-American also trouble this author -- but perhaps he realizes that showing his "true colors" in this regard may do his cause an injustice? Perhaps God, in this person's mind, must be Northern European, Nordic, and male (not to mention in control, sovereign and in charge ).
I am aware that The Shack ruffles some religious feathers, but I believe, supported by my understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that religious comfort zones need to be invaded with God's grace.
3) All of the critiques of The Shack I have seen (and this one is no exception) seem to be so upset with some of the challenges to religiously conforming views of the Godhead (as opposed to biblically sound and orthodox) that they have to resort to the bandwagon technique of taking an obvious dysfunction/flaw/fallacy and linking it to the cause under discussion. the author of this "review" cannot simply critique The Shack but must link it with Marianne Williamson's A Course in Miracles -- peppering his stern admonitions with "new age" and "Oprah Winfrey."
I am also deeply concerned about the new age and A Course in Miracles, as it seems the author of this "review" is, seeing them as failing to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the fact that this author may find The Shack challenging to his religious notions (as opposed to biblically verifiable, authentic Christianity) doesn't give him a biblical mandate to discredit it. I believe this reviewer has far exceeded his biblical boundaries in lumping The Shack in with A Course in Miracles -- and that act alone gives me great pause to consider the conclusions he reaches.
4) The author titles his "review" -- "Deceived by a counterfeit 'Jesus' -- The Twisted 'truths' of The Shack and A Course in Miracles." His rhetoric that follows doesn't live up to his sensational accusation. One can call The Shack anything one wants to -- Nazi, Islamic propaganda, atheistic, godless, etc. -- but name-calling does not suffice. This author's train of apologetic thought fails, in my opinion, to "correctly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
5) As I read what this "reviewer" has to say, it seems he has an agenda -- he wishes to use The Shack to discredit what he calls, variously, a "unifying, non-judgmental church" -- led by "postmodern church leaders."
But the author doesn't tell me why I should prefer a judgmental church over a non-judgmental one, and he certainly doesn't attempt to prove that a judgmental church is superior via an exposition of the teachings of Jesus. He doesn't tell me why a unified church, which is what Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-23) -- the unity in Christ which Paul taught (Ephesians 4:1-6) is a big no-no.
I should reject the inclusion of Jesus and Paul, but accept the exclusiveness of this obviously upset author, whose, as the Brits say, "knickers are in a twist"?
The author doesn't define postmodern, but simply throws it out there as an all purpose pejorative, used, presumably, against anything with which he doesn't agree.
6) The author calls the The Shack's "false God" one that mocks the true God -- but he offers no biblical teaching of how his "true God" differs from that depicted in the fiction of The Shack. He asserts that the Trinity of The Shack is a false trinity, but he offers no proof for such a charge other than his own presumed authority and insight.
7) This "review" is against those who see God as "inclusive" (please help me here -- I should read Jesus' teaching and conclude that Jesus was and is an exclusivist?). He labels The Shack as "counterfeit Christianity" -- but again, he lobs such allegations irresponsibly, with no biblical proof as to why I should believe him.
8) The reviewer introduces his critique by quoting Jesus, in Matthew 24:4-5, leading readers to conclude that Jesus was talking about The Shack. But the fact is that Jesus was talking about the very kind of religious objections to Jesus that this reviewer has about The Shack!
9) There is no more reason for every Christian to read The Shack than there was for every Christian to go see The Passion of the Christ or buy every volume of Tim LaHaye's Left Behind publishing juggernaut. I didn't get on board with either of those fads, and I supported my reluctance to both biblically. But although I had, and still do have, concern about both of these sensations, I didn't lump either The Passion of the Christ or the Left Behind with A Course in Miracles. To have done so, in my opinion, would have been disingenuous. This "review" is just another example, in my view, of why Satan doesn't really need to work too hard attacking Christians -- there never seems to be a dearth of those within Christendom who are all too willing to attack Christians in God's name.
I carefully read and edited The Shack at the manuscript stage. I endorsed it, and I don't endorse books lightly. I am aware that The Shack ruffles some religious feathers, but I believe, supported by my understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that religious comfort zones need to be invaded with God's grace.
PTM will continue to support The Shack.In Christ
Greg AlbrechtFOR MORE -- GREG ANSWERS MORE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE SHACK
A FAVORABLE REVIEW OF THE SHACK BY RON BRACKIN
RETURN TO PTM WEEKLY UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE
Copyright © 2008 Plain Truth Ministries -- Worldwide.
