The Shack
- Thread starter mmberk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have not read the book myself yet (but I hope to read it at some point in the future), however I have listened to what I personally consider to be a theologically and biblically disturbing interview that William Young participated in, in which he discusses his own theological beliefs.
Although I disagreed with practically everything Young stated in this interview about what his beliefs are (including his definition of Hell as not being separation from God, and his belief that people might have a chance to accept Christ after death), I will just mention the one I consider to be the most dangerous - and that is he own admitted rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus, which he states at nearly the mid-point of the interview (I will link the complete interview below).
I am sure there may be a minority of people on this site (both Christian and non-Christian) who also reject the penal substitutionary atonement, so my audience for this post (and warning) is directed to the majority of people here (including myself) who identify the penal substitutionary atonement as the Gospel itself. The person doing the interview (Baptist pastor Kendall Adams) rightly responds to William Young by saying the penal substitution of Jesus is "the very heart of the Gospel."
So again, I have not read the book, and therefore I don't even know if William Young's denial of the penal substitution of Christ appears in the book or not (perhaps those here who have read the book can clarify if he includes it or not), however my point here is to urge Christians to be very cautious when recommending a book to other Christians (especially to non-Christians) of whom they do not know the background beliefs of the author himself/herself. And in that light, Christians should then be extremely cautious when the author publically rejects not simply "a belief" of the Christian faith, but a belief that is the absolute core of the Gospel itself.
Here is the link to the interview, which is located on the blog of David Westerfield, and is found at the top of the blog post.
I hope it can help the discussion here on CC.
Shack Author William P. Young Explicitly Denies Penal Substitution (MP3) | DavidWesterfield.net
Although I disagreed with practically everything Young stated in this interview about what his beliefs are (including his definition of Hell as not being separation from God, and his belief that people might have a chance to accept Christ after death), I will just mention the one I consider to be the most dangerous - and that is he own admitted rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus, which he states at nearly the mid-point of the interview (I will link the complete interview below).
I am sure there may be a minority of people on this site (both Christian and non-Christian) who also reject the penal substitutionary atonement, so my audience for this post (and warning) is directed to the majority of people here (including myself) who identify the penal substitutionary atonement as the Gospel itself. The person doing the interview (Baptist pastor Kendall Adams) rightly responds to William Young by saying the penal substitution of Jesus is "the very heart of the Gospel."
So again, I have not read the book, and therefore I don't even know if William Young's denial of the penal substitution of Christ appears in the book or not (perhaps those here who have read the book can clarify if he includes it or not), however my point here is to urge Christians to be very cautious when recommending a book to other Christians (especially to non-Christians) of whom they do not know the background beliefs of the author himself/herself. And in that light, Christians should then be extremely cautious when the author publically rejects not simply "a belief" of the Christian faith, but a belief that is the absolute core of the Gospel itself.
Here is the link to the interview, which is located on the blog of David Westerfield, and is found at the top of the blog post.
I hope it can help the discussion here on CC.
Shack Author William P. Young Explicitly Denies Penal Substitution (MP3) | DavidWesterfield.net
U
I had kept hearing how great it was, someone got it for me for Xmas a year or two ago. I read it, and i was quite uncomfortable with the book the whole time i read it. While on the outside it had a Christian image, but underneath i kept getting senses of New Age-ism. I had a bad feeling while reading, and after reading this book, and i will not touch it again, and will not give away or lend out my copy to anyone.
R
I currently got this on audiobook in my car, halfway through with it.
It's good..crazy how i heard so much negativity by some about it, but so far its been good..so long as you take it as inspirational and I see the book being a lot of help to many who have gone through loss/grief..I can relate to the book so far,and to Mack in many ways..
R
I know and understand the possible 'hesitations' you have about the book, regarding the description of the trinity in it,etc. I believe it was good that the author did this to get us out of our box regarding God and who he is..Regarding a 'universalist' stance on the book so i have heard(halfway reading it/listening on audio book) I do not see it just yet but so long as one can eat the hay and spit out the sticks i do believe there is good stuff in this book and the story that it tells.
Greetings Rauleetoe.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and respond to it. However, I believe it may be possible my post was misunderstood. So please allow me to take a few moments to try and reiterate what I wrote, not for the sake of debate, but solely for clarification sake.
Your first point in your post was that I should not comment on a book (or take anyone else's opinion on it) before I read it myself. I concur with that fact wholeheartedly and we are in complete agreement there, which is why I stated at the beginning of my post that I would not be discussing the book, but rather I would only be commenting on the interview itself. Therefore your suggestion that I should read the book first before I comment on it (although very true) was an unnecessary suggestion to make in regards to my specific post (which was not about the book, but only the interview by itself).
Secondly, you stated that I should not blindly accept the words of a Baptist preacher talking about someone else just because he said so. Again, that is absolutely true and I certainly agree with you. So I believe the misunderstanding there was that the link I provided in my post was simply a Baptist preacher speaking "about" William Young. But actually the link is an interview in which the Baptist preacher spoke "with" William Young (Young is in the interview and he speaks for himself). Therefore it was a dialogue between the two men, not a monologue by the Baptist preacher. And my specific comments about Young's beliefs were based on his own words spoken in the interview, they were not based on hearsay.
I hope that helps a little bit with understanding the points in post. If not, let me know and I will see if I can restate my main points in another way.
God bless you, Friend.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and respond to it. However, I believe it may be possible my post was misunderstood. So please allow me to take a few moments to try and reiterate what I wrote, not for the sake of debate, but solely for clarification sake.
Your first point in your post was that I should not comment on a book (or take anyone else's opinion on it) before I read it myself. I concur with that fact wholeheartedly and we are in complete agreement there, which is why I stated at the beginning of my post that I would not be discussing the book, but rather I would only be commenting on the interview itself. Therefore your suggestion that I should read the book first before I comment on it (although very true) was an unnecessary suggestion to make in regards to my specific post (which was not about the book, but only the interview by itself).
Secondly, you stated that I should not blindly accept the words of a Baptist preacher talking about someone else just because he said so. Again, that is absolutely true and I certainly agree with you. So I believe the misunderstanding there was that the link I provided in my post was simply a Baptist preacher speaking "about" William Young. But actually the link is an interview in which the Baptist preacher spoke "with" William Young (Young is in the interview and he speaks for himself). Therefore it was a dialogue between the two men, not a monologue by the Baptist preacher. And my specific comments about Young's beliefs were based on his own words spoken in the interview, they were not based on hearsay.
I hope that helps a little bit with understanding the points in post. If not, let me know and I will see if I can restate my main points in another way.
God bless you, Friend.
R
So i have heard that William Paul Young is one who leans towards universalism,which is not the gospel..I still do however believe if one has discernment there can be good things learned from the book,and its helped me in a place where lonliness and brokenness are very much things i can relate to. So, Mack's story speaks to me. I do not doubt that Mr. Young is a universalist, but it didn't stop me from getting the audiobook,which was on clearance at the barnes n noble, to listen to.
I had heard of someone writing a book as a rebuttal about the shack titled..Burning the shack.
I had heard of someone writing a book as a rebuttal about the shack titled..Burning the shack.
I couldn’t finish the book. God is Holy, God is not human, God is God. I was completely turned off by using human symbolism for God.
I could almost see Moses coming down from Mt Sinai to see that the people needed a symbol for God, to see the golden calf. The entire book seemed to me to not reflect God.
I could almost see Moses coming down from Mt Sinai to see that the people needed a symbol for God, to see the golden calf. The entire book seemed to me to not reflect God.
U
These are more than 'hesitations' i am firmly against the book. And i have talked to others who picked up on the same thing.
Also, you're trying to make comments on the book without having really paid attention to it. Doesn't really validate your thoughts on it.
Well, there's 'good' in a lot of things, doesn't mean i'm going to go read anything just because there's 'some' good in it. Mixing truth and lies still ends up a lie.
Also, you're trying to make comments on the book without having really paid attention to it. Doesn't really validate your thoughts on it.
Well, there's 'good' in a lot of things, doesn't mean i'm going to go read anything just because there's 'some' good in it. Mixing truth and lies still ends up a lie.
R
Well if I was going to reject a book on the premise that I did not agree with every single thing in it..I would not read anything..
That said, I have paid attention to what is said..While i go to a more traditional emphasis church, i do not have the same exact opinions and exact convictions that all of my church family do..many who would be siding with you on the 'shack' debate..
That said, God can still use it, and i believe he has used the shack in others lives..and he has used it in my life.
That said, I have paid attention to what is said..While i go to a more traditional emphasis church, i do not have the same exact opinions and exact convictions that all of my church family do..many who would be siding with you on the 'shack' debate..
That said, God can still use it, and i believe he has used the shack in others lives..and he has used it in my life.
R
Well..a golden calf does not relate to man as much as a sweet heavyset motherly Black woman or sweet Asian woman or working middleeastern 'human' do..
We are human after all, no one is denying that God is holy, we all know this..but its a book! And God uses people to reach us..on that extreme, how could God use any human,who are obviously not God..to reach us?
It is a thought..
We are human after all, no one is denying that God is holy, we all know this..but its a book! And God uses people to reach us..on that extreme, how could God use any human,who are obviously not God..to reach us?
It is a thought..
W
A postmodernist indeed 
... "A Beginner's Guide to Postmodernism" (MP3) - Phil Johnson http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/GL-2006-06-30-PJ.mp3
... "A Beginner's Guide to Postmodernism" (MP3) - Phil Johnson http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/GL-2006-06-30-PJ.mp3