A Close Encounter With God

How is the book "Christian"? The Holy Spirit isn't a "thing" that you confront and talk to and hang out with, the Holy Spirit is a quickening breath, any Christian should know this?

Why don't people realize if God presented himself to you you'd lose free will, thus the only person who can even speak with God is a very righteous person, one who is clearly filled of the Holy Spirit and will enter Heaven easily.

Young presents a refreshing take on having a relationship with God . Despite some bogged down writing and some severe theological error, it touches the heart of everyone who has been abused, rejected, unloved, suffered loss, abandoned, etc...He is obviously kicking down our sacred cows with this creative work much to the chargrin of religious conservatives who label it heresy. This, I believe, is a bit far fetch for I don;t believe that many will perfer Young's God over the God of Scriptures. The book is FICTION born out of one man's need to express his own personal pain through a fantasy weekend with the Godhead. I believe much of the hoopla is rotted in jealousy among those who wish they would have thought of such a brilliant idea. Of course no matter how scriptural they would have presented it, some Bible totting fanatic will have stones in head ready to label it heresy. For another greeat work check out A Step Into Deliverance by Toni Pugh..

Not every detail is worth dissecting; a novel is not systematic theology. Yet it???s clearly more than just fiction. Though never citing Scripture directly, the characters make enough allusions to biblical content to imply fidelity to orthodox Christianity. Combined with chapter-heading quotes by thoughtful Christians like C.S. Lewis and Marilynne Robinson, the effect is prophet-like: not quite ???Thus saith the Lord,??? but not far from it.

And therein hides the book???s gravest, and most subtle, problem. Though some parts roughly align with biblical teaching (and many others explicitly contradict it), the book???s overall attitude toward Scripture is persistently dismissive. Mack???s own disdain is conveyed early on: ???God???s voice had been reduced to paper. ??? Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in gilt edges, or was that guilt edges???? (p. 65-67).

More significant, when Mack mentions biblical events or concepts (often in gross caricature), ???God??? promptly brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is. Unlike the biblical Jesus, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and spent many post-resurrection hours ???opening their minds to understand the scriptures,??? The Shack???s Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu turn Mack???s attention away from Scripture, coaxing him to trust instead their simplistic lessons set in idyllic, Thomas Kinkade-like scenes and delivered in the familiar therapeutic language of our age.

In clear opposition to Scripture, they explicitly teach that there is no authority or hierarchy within the Trinity, and that God is never willing to violate human free will. There???s also a paragraph that seems to imply universal salvation, and a chapter about judgment that stubbornly avoids pronouncement about the fate of the wicked. In fact, there???s little reason to believe that The Shack???s God ever judges anyone.

Young???s diagnosis of sin as ???control??? has some merit, but his prescription of an entirely flat, circular relationship between us and God ultimately violates a fundamental truth of biblical anthropology: God is the Creator, and we are His creatures. Even after we have been redeemed by Christ, our relationship to God is rightly characterized by obedience and one-way submission to Him.

The result? To the extent that you trust The Shack, you will distrust your Bible???including huge chunks of the Old Testament and at least half of the red letters. Few errors are more corrosive to vigorous Christian faith. Some will plead that there is enough meat for careful readers to spit out the bones, but sadly, this yeast leavens the whole loaf.

In the end, The Shack is spiritual comfort food loaded with theological trans fat. Though not without some nutritional value, its effect on the body of Christ is more harmful than healthy. Even if you love it, and even if it makes you cry. Junk food and bad movies can do the same. We need the Bible, not The Shack.

But here is the question, McCain in '08, have you read the book? A five paragraph article in a magazine that is not Christian and you make the assumption that the entire book is not Christian. What makes them solely human? The description given of them in the article?