Now we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is (not) walking . . . in accord with the tradition you received from us. As for you, do not grow weary in doing good" (II Thessalonians 3:6,13).
One can't help but imagine what the disciples saw and felt when they observed Jesus move among sinners. From the adulteress women at the well, to the pagan tax collector hiding in the trees, Jesus taught the early disciples the power of transforming love. He himself declared, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35). It would seem that this tradition of loving people through unselfishly doing that which is good for others is the very mark of Jesus in us. Paul wrote to young Timothy and exhorted him to not associate with those Christians who used people for their own selfish purposes and who were filled with indulgent idleness. This kind of behavior is the opposite of the tradition which Timothy received from the early followers of Jesus. It's interesting to note that the Apostle Paul's concern for Timothy is not that he keep away from those brothers teaching differently, but from those brothers walking differently. Or, to put it in John's language, the world will know that we are Christians not by what we say but by how we love.
The Book "The Shack"
In 2008 I read Paul Young's book The Shack. It came recommended to me by my wife, my mother and my sister, all of whom shared with me the book "rocked their world." I read the book, and though I enjoyed it, it was not life changing for me. My wife would later tell me that for years she has heard me preach on the Father's unconditional love for His people - an eternal, personal and unrelenting love - so she felt the book didn't affect me deeply because it simply presented in different form the very core of my own belief system. She, of course, was right. My belief in God's unchanging love for me - a love that precedes Creation, my conversion, and carries me to and through eternity - is the very basis of my freedom and joy. Memorizing Psalm 139 when a child and reading God's Everlasting Love for His Elect by John Gill as a teenager, solidified in my heart and mind the truth of God's deep, personal and everlasting love for me.
However, tens of millions of sinners do not live in the joy of knowing God's love for their souls. Paul Young, author of The Shack, had a hard time believing God loved him from early in his childhood. The son of Christian Missionary Alliance missionaries in Indonesia, Paul was raised by native cannibals who repeatedly, forcibly and secretly molested him before he was six years of age. Combine that abuse with an angry natural father who taught Paul by His words and actions that God punishes people for their religious non-performance, Paul's image of God, even after coming to faith in Jesus, was that of a distant deity more interested in punishment than a loving Papa enjoying personal relationships.
In The Shack, Paul has used a creative metaphor to present "Papa," or God the Father, as the loving, kind and good Heavenly Father revealed to us in Scripture. Some have expressed outrage that Papa is metaphorically presented in Young's book as a loving African-American woman, as if Young literally believes God the Father is a loving, large black woman. Paul Young's metaphor of God the Father no more bothers me than David portraying God as a big bird ("hide me under the shadow of Thy wings" Psalm 17:8), or C.S. Lewis' imagery of God being "a lion" in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Intuitively I knew after reading The Shack that members of Emmanuel Baptist Church who have heard me preach for years on the love of God for His people would benefit from hearing Paul Young himself.
Paul Young at Emmanuel, Enid, April 4-5, 2009
Last weekend's services at Emmanuel, Enid with guest speaker Paul Young possessed more of the Spirit's gifts of renewal, cleansing and conversion than any weekend I can remember in twenty-five years of pastoral ministry. Several hundred gathered on Saturday night, then again in three services on Sunday morning, and for one final service on Sunday night. The gospel - the good news - was shared in all the services. Men for whom we have prayed for a long time came to faith in Jesus, some of whom will be baptized this Sunday. Addicts publicly expressed their choice to let go of their addictions and turn to God our Heavenly Father through trusting the work of Jesus for their souls. People sat for two hours, without moving, hearing gripping accounts from both Scripture and life of how Jesus sets captives free.
I came into the weekend believing Paul Young's view of the Trinity may be his weak point, but after all four services I now believe Paul Young's view of the Trinity is his strong point. One of the finest messages I have ever heard, a message saturated with the truth of Scripture, was preached in the 8:30 a.m. morning worship service. His explanation of the love relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity, all of whom possess the full and equal essence of the eternal Deity, is the foundation for Young's belief that the Father only does what He does out of a heart of love for relationship. We are putting all six hours of teaching on six CD's in a CD notebook, including six MP3 files, which will be available at our cost - $25.00. You may order by calling (580-237-0602).
Fellowship Supercedes Theological Differences
Paul Young believes that Papa was in Christ reconciling the world (i.e. "every single human being") to Himself. It is no secret that I believe the biblical word "world" does not encompass every single human being without exception, but rather an innumerable company of sinners from every tribe, every kindred, every nation and every family. In this Paul and I would differ. Yet, Paul agrees with me that the God's redemption of sinners is so powerful at the cross, that nothing negates the love of God the Father toward those for whom He lovingly sent His only begotten Son to die. We simply differ over whether those sinners God chooses to enter into a redeeming love relationship include every single sinner who has ever lived or an innumerable company of particular sinners whom God has chosen to redeem.
Some are now calling Paul a universalist. Not so. Paul believes in hell, but he believes hell cannot be comprehended apart from God's love. How God can eternally love people who experience His wrath in hell is explained by Paul using different human analogies which you can hear if you listen to the CD's. It is Paul's hope that every man will one day experience the love of God. Paul differs with me not in affirming the truth that God loves every human being, for I believe the Father does, but in my belief that God the Father has a special, distinguishing, redeeming love for particular sinners. For example, I might tell you that "I love my wife" and then tell you that "I love your wife." But I can guarantee you that I don't love your wife in the same manner in which I love my wife. Likewise, there is a Bride for the Trinity, and she is loved by God with a special, eternal and unconditional love, and the Father has done everything for this Bride to effectually bring to pass her redemption. Paul and I agree that this Bride of Christ is composed of those for whom Christ died - we just disagree that Christ died in the stead of every human being without exception.
Ironically, we both share in common a strong resistance to the legalism of religion. All religions, even some religionists of the Southern Baptist variety, tell you that you must do something to earn the love of God. But the good news of the gospel is that God's love cannot be earned, it rises from His heart of love like an artesian spring, needed nothing to draw it out. To trust and experience God's unconditional love, no matter one's earthly condition, is the basis for true freedom and joy. More importantly, when one's heart is full of the love of God, it overflows with love for others. I came away from this weekend not changing my theology of particular redemption one iota, but through Paul's life and message, recommitted to love every single sinner with whom I come in contact - from the hardest hearted sinner to the one who professes to be my most profound enemy.
Paul Young loves sinners like Jesus loves sinners. Paul signed hundreds of books this weekend, and after he signed each book with a unique personal message, Paul would then personally embrace the person. The lines would often stretch for hours, but Paul was never in a rush. Every single person was treated as a most important person. One could learn a great deal about the hurt sin causes and the healing Jesus brings by simply observing the tearful hugs and listening to soul wrenching conversations people had with Paul Young. Unlike many in the professionally religious world who want the admiration of others, Paul was genuinely humble, shockingly transparent (publicly confessing his own failures) and deeply concerned for the healing needed in the souls of others.
An Illustration of the Power of God's Love
One of our young ladies at Emmanuel has probably been through as much hurt as Paul. She is now seventeen. When she was ten, her father was killed with a shotgun by her mother and her mother's boyfriend. Our church member was then kidnapped along with her brother and taken to Mexico by her mother and her mother's lover the day of her father's funeral. Police eventually caught the murderer and she now sits on death row in Oklahoma. It has been difficult for our seventeen year old church member to trust adults, but as I told Paul her story and watched as he signed her book, whispered words of encouragement in her ear, and then give her a warm and affectionate embrace, it was evident that our church member had come to understand that the love of God cannot be measured by the absence of painful events or the abundance of temporal blessings in our lives. The message got through to this young lady, as evidenced by her tears and her willingess to converse with a strange adult man for the first time in over a decade, that God loves us the way we are and is powerful enough to deal with the ugly and destructive junk in our lives caused by sin.
Stories like this could be repeated over and over again from this past weekend, but because of time I wish to close this short review of Paul Young and his book. It has not been my desire in this post to answer every question you might have about The Shack, nor has it been my desire to defend the author - God is quite capable of doing both for you and Paul Young respectively. My desire is to give a modern illustration of applying the teaching of the Apostle Paul to young Timothy in the verse placed at the top of this post (II Thessalonians 3:6).
Some have suggested I should have "kept away" from Paul Young. Some Southern Baptists have volunteered that Paul Young should never have been invited to Emmanuel to speak. They suggest that he is teaching heresy in his Christian fiction book. I, however, will follow the instructions of the Apostle Paul. I will maintain a friendship and cooperation with my brother in Christ, Paul Young, because he practices the ancient tradition of the fathers of our faith - he genuinely loves sinners.
And I will keep away from those brothers who don't practice this love - no matter how much they agree with me theologically.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
586 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 586 of 586Excellent comment, anonymous 3:29 pm! Two problems associated with Bible worship are 1) It is inconsistent with the Bible itself, which clearly states that the Holy Spirit and even nature itself can teach us necessary truths of God; 2) Worship of the Bible inevitably becomes worship of MY interpretation of the Bible. The statement in the B F & M 1963 that Christ is the criterion for interpretation of scripture at least reminds us that we must be very careful if our interpretation seems at odds with the character and teachings of Christ. It reminds us that we are not the last word or final authority on what is taught by scripture.
When I discuss my faith with unbelievers (including an atheist Nobel laureate!), I point out the problems with relativism and with any world view that supposes natural explanations for everything. Probably everyone who posts on this blog would be in general agreement with me on this. Thus, it was initially surprising to me that I typically take the "liberal" or "moderate" position in discussions here. However, I am becoming convinced that "liberal" and "moderate" have nothing to do with my differences with some who post here. These differences mostly derive from a tendency on the part of some people to not only insist that God's word is authoritative (which I believe), but that their interpretation of it is authoritative (which I do not believe).
The disappointment has been that almost none of the people convinced of the authoritative nature of their interpretation are willing to discuss differences in interpretation point-by-point and either refute real objections to their positions or admit that they cannot refute them but still prefer their own interpretation. There have been very few examples of such objective dialog that have not deteriorated to some form of name calling. I have to confess to having fallen into this trap a few times myself, but I try to keep the discussions objective.
I came to blogging with the assumption that Baptist pastors are mostly kind, thoughtful, and have some degree of humility (or at least recognize that having such is desirable). I also came to blogging with a background from my job in which I have only very rarely seen a disagreement over interpretation of scientific data lead to personal animosity and in which one is regarded as a poor practitioner if one ignores valid objections to a proposed explanation or demonstrates lack of objectivity in assessing the meaning of a colleague's comments. It is sad that secular (and often anti-religious) people can have vigorous but respectful discussions of difficult issues, while we believers struggle and mostly fail in this regard.
So, what has all of this to do with the current topic? It is clear that many people dislike Paul Young's, The Shack. However, after many posts, I have not seen detailed reasons for these objections backed by specific quotes from the book. There are many comments that take pieces and parts and then state with certainty, something to the effect that this clearly demonstrates that Young supports modalism... Sorry, but one can take parts of anyone's view of the Trinity, even parts of the biblical teachings on that subject and reach the wrong conclusion. Since Young only used the components of his theology that moved the narrative along and also mixed that with metaphor and/or allegory, I can't imagine how anyone could claim to be certain about Young's opinion on an issue that is as theologically complex as the trinity.
Instead, the author has been advised to stick to scripture and not try to use literary devices to make scriptural themes come alive in a way that many people never experienced before. Will any of these people confuse The Shack for The Bible? I doubt it. Will many of them go to the Bible to determine how the Shack squares with it? I think so. Should we stop making and enjoying music, literature, plays, and films that focus on Christian themes because they are not the Bible and some parts might be interpreted to include doctrinal errors? I hope not, but that is the message I think many commenters here would seem to favor. In tone, many of these comments remind me of the theological quibbles many expressed with regard to Rick Warren's Purpose Driven series. I can't help but wonder whose contributions will be valued more highly by God. Those who used their God given talents to write books that would bring millions closer to God and have probably been used by God to bring thousands to salvation, or those who not only criticize but harshly condemn these writers.
Objective, respectful criticism of content could be helpful and may be needed. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of this.
First of all, I am not Gereja, who has now gone from a Quaker to a Mormon. Waiting to see what they will be interpreted to be next.....? Mostly I cant tell what in the world they are trying to say.
Second, how you (4:43 PM) or anyone else oomes up with the idea that to promote Biblical literacy or Bible study organizations is equivalent to idolatry, blasphemy or considering the Word of God to be above God is beyond me. You want to run that by some Awana children?
My premise all along: put the Bible in people's hands first (you want to give them The Shack, do it with a bible then). And encourage correct study of the Word within context. Maybe try attending a Bible Believing teaching church where people know the Word and how to study it for themselves.
How y'all come up with this being worshipping the Bible is again, a very odd and way off the beaten path idea.
What do you think we should be doing in church? (unless you are a fan of the book and dont think we need church.)
How my thoughts ended up being Bible 'worshipping' is way beyond me, as it would be any church member I know who has a hunger and thirst after studying the Word of God. And since I have spent the last thirty plus years in three of the most wonderful Bible teaching churches anywhere, I know a goodly few people. They would have looked at this 'discussion', scratched their collective heads and said "HUH?"
But again, you have proved the exact point that folks who disapprove of this work of fiction are making.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
"How my thoughts ended up being Bible 'worshipping' is way beyond me"
What did you say to get all that started? Where is it located? We don't know which anon. you are.
Stephen Pruett said:
"So, what has all of this to do with the current topic? It is clear that many people dislike Paul Young's, The Shack. However, after many posts, I have not seen detailed reasons for these objections backed by specific quotes from the book."
I have read every comment on here and see many quotes from the book that give foundation to detailed reasons for objections. I won't repeat them but here are my objections.
I have three main objections, and these are the foundational precepts to Christianity. And yes, I am authoritative in my interpretations of these three.
1. BOOK: Approximately pg 70-ish: God is revealed as a woman.
BIBLE: Nowhere in scripture does God reveal himself as a woman. EVER.
2. BOOK: "Is Jesus the only way to heaven?" "Well..." says 'God" "He is the BEST way." p 182
BIBLE: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
3. BOOK: "I don't need to punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it, it's my joy to cure it." page 120
BIBLE: For the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23a
BIBLE: "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
So the book rejects God as He revealed Himself, rejects sin as the central problem, and rejects Jesus's work on the cross.
I do not object to any author writing these things. It is his right. But a woman god saying sin goes unpunished and there are many ways to heaven? What's NOT to dislike about this book?
Heresy.
Quotes from Paul Young's interview with Pastor Kendall Adams on KAYP Radio:
Kendall Adams: "I, I take it that you wouldn't, you wouldn't agree that the cross was a place of punishment for our sin."
Paul Young: "No. I don't, I am not a penal substitution ... reformation ... point of view."
Adams: "But isn't that the heart of the gospel? Is that the heart of the gospel?"
Young: "No! Ha, no!"... I'm not saying that I don't agree with some sense of substitutionary atonement."
Adams: "But you disagree..."
Young: "But it's way broader (muffled) than that."
Adams: "But if you reject a penal substitution that Christ died as a penalty for our sins, it seems like that is the, that is the Christian faith."
Young: "I don't know if you're aware, but that's a huge debate that's going on in theology right now within the evangelical community."
Compromise is killing the church.
Elizabeth:
The Shack is fiction.
Tom I am fully aware of the fact that the book is "fiction". It makes no difference. Christian booksellers are promoting it. Christian pulpits are promoting it. By proxy it means they accept the compromises of the basic foundations to the bible within it.
Again, compromise is killing the church.
PS to Tom:
Shouldn't "Christian fiction" be that which is consistent with the way the Bible reveals God and His creation and His precepts?
I say yes.
Again, compromise is killing the church. 1 Thess 2:4
I wonder ... did anyone enjoy "Field of Dreams"?
Elizabeth, what did you think of Aslan in C.S. Lewis' book,
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe?
Methinks you are not well-versed in the finer points of literary criticism and certainly have no appreciation for the beauty of literary devices in fiction.
In short, you are not literate in the ways of literature.
It's okay. But why cut down people who do appreciate literary devices in literature?
It's like a person who cannot fly a plane shaking their fist at someone who is a pilot and saying, 'how dare you fly a plane, if God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings'.
Elizabeth, some people have 'imagination' and can fly.
Some people don't.
Some of those people 'shake their fists' in anger, but they can't spoil the joy of flying for the ones who are able to do it.
Now. You've just had a little example of a 'literary device'.
I don't expect that you 'got it'.
But, if you did, it's not so hard to understand, is it?
Elizabeth,
I do not doubt that God is never called "mother." But motherly and womanly imagry is used of God. In fact, when God creates Eve the word He uses to describe her is only used of God elsewhere in the Hebrew. Therefore, it is not 'heresy' for God to be described as a woman. God is described as having birth pains. Last time I checked, when men had those it was only because a woman was squeezing their hand too hard.
As to your second heresy and the interview with Kendall Adams, at least there Paul was not allowed to explain himself (though I do not know what explanation he would offer). Kendall seems to be interupting and very much entrapping Young. When he says he believes in some form of substitutionary atonement I believe we need to hear him before we dismiss him as heretical. He says it is broader than penal substitution. What else is encompassed? How does Young articulate substitutionary atonement? There are important questions left unanswered before you can condemn him.
To your third quote and follow-up. "For the wages of sin is death" could certainly imply that sin brings its own punishment. Young specifically states that God does not *need* to punish sin. That does not mean that He is unable or unwilling to. I thank God every day that He does not need to punish sin: mercy is a great thing indeed. Furthermore, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God's *purpose* is not to punish sin. God's purpose is to love and be loved, to give life and it abundantly. Punishment of sin may take place, but that is God's grief-ful duty, not His joyful purpose. It is His joy to cure our sin and blot out our inequities so that we can be in a right relationship with Him.
Of the three "heresies" you list, none are absolutely clear in Young's work, and are even less so if you read closely. If there are other proof-texts to offer, feel free. What you have offered thus far isn't compelling.
Elizabeth,
Thank you for your clear and succinct objections. I may have overlooked them, but I have not seen anything this clear and direct among all these posts.
My response to these objections is that:
1) God as a woman is obviously a literary device, probably designed to shake us out the rut that most of us live in with our conception of God. It is not entirely correct that God is never referred to as female in scripture. Christ is referred to as a hen (female chicken) gathering its brood. Furthermore, scripture is clear that marriage does not exist in heaven. Doesn't this raise some questions about gender and its role in the Kingdom of God? I don't think of God as a woman and scripture is almost uniform in using referring to God as a male, but there is an exception and in a work of fiction the use of a literary device to cause readers to think more deeply about something that is normally addressed only superficially seems reasonable.
2) Jesus is the Best way to heaven (not the only way). I agree with you here, but this is more complicated than you might think. The roll call of the faithful in Hebrews indicates the the faith of many Old Testament figures was counted as righteousness. Conservative Christians believe that they were still saved by Christ and that his atonement was effectual for them, even though they died before he was born. However, they could not accept that atonement in the name of Christ Jesus, because they did not know that name. I am not aware of any scripture that conclusively establishes that faith without complete knowledge, but faith that is responsive to whatever knowledge that has been granted cannot be effectual for atonement and salvation. This is not universalism, because anyone who is not responsive to the knowledge they have rejects God and will not be saved. It also does not imply that Christianity is one of many equally valid religions. It means that Jesus is The way, but apprehending that Way can be done now as it was in the Old Testament times by those who have not heard of Christ. To be honest, I am not sure I believe this notion because there are passages in the New Testament that are difficult to reconcile with it. However, some of those could be interpreted in several ways and the salvation of the Old Testament patriarchs is very clear in scripture. My point is that although I don't agree with the Young's idea on this as he stated it, but if he meant that Jesus is the Way, but it just might be possible to follow that Way with little or no specific knowledge of Jesus, then I would say he is not a heretic and he makes a case that at least can be supported to some degree from scripture. I would have to check for related statements and the context of the statement you cite to determine if this might be the case or if he really meant that there are other ways to be saved that do not depend on Jesus at all. Obviously, that would be heresy and should be vigorously criticized.
3) I don't need to punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it, it's my joy to cure it."
Do you dislike the part that indicates it is God's joy to cure sin? Probably not. So you don't like the part that indicates sin is its own punishment. The Screwtape Letters by C.S Lewis takes a similar view, with hell being very much like a meaningless bureaucracy with people in death doing just what they chose to do in life and being punished thereby. I don't see very many people calling Lewis a heretic. Again, this is not a systematic theology text. I suspect some things are stated in different ways on purpose to stimulate deep thought on a topic that most people, particularly religious people regard to be routine. Do I believe God punishes sin? Yes. Does he do this at least some of the time by letting us sin and letting the consequences of sin run their course? Yes, and I think that is scriptural (whatever we sow we reap). Didn't Jesus say He came into the world not to condemn the world (and punish its sin) but that the world through Him might be saved? I know, I know the punishment of sin is found in other passages and is only implicit in this one. However, you should also remember that the Shack is not a systematic theology text, and the basic idea expressed here can be supported from scripture though it is clearly not a comprehensive or exhaustive view of punishment for sin, which would need to address passages that indicate punishment in addition to that which results directly from our sin is due us unless we repent.
With regard to the radio interview, the part you overlooked is that he did say he believes in a form of penal substitutionary atonement. He is simply struggling to find the correct balance between God's love and His justice, which will influence how we think about punishment.
One of the major stumbling blocks for many people who would otherwise be open to the gospel message is the the "authoritative" stance by many Christians that if you die without ever having heard of Christ or only hearing about Him as a minor prophet in the context of being raised in a different faith then you go to hell, too bad, no room for disagreement on this. Think of the person you love most. Imagine this person never heard of Christ and then died and went to hell. Are you really, really perfectly OK with that? I think it is this issue that Young is trying to address in the Shack. I believe this is a very difficult problem. It is not unlike the situation with slavery. Specific passages that address slavery were used by our Southern Baptist ancestors to justify slavery, because they do not condemn it but refer to it simply as something that exists and encourage slaves to obey their masters. Why do we no longer interpret scripture this way? I do not know if a rationale was presented along with the apology for supporting slavery issues a few years ago by the SBC, but the only one I can imagine is that these individual scriptures were not being interpreted in light of the overwhelming emphasis of scripture on the love and compassion of God and is hatred of oppression. So Southern Baptists have used an argument that could be applied to this issue of salvation for people who never heard of Christ. The scriptures are abundantly and repetitively clear that God loves all and desires that none should perish. Reconciling that idea with the idea of eternal punishment for people who have never heard of Jesus is a struggle and I think if more of us at least admitted it was a difficult teaching and we did not understand how to reconcile it with God's love, then more people would be open to the gospel. The usual statements of Christians with whom I agree on almost all doctrinal issues about salvation for people who have never heard of Christ and their tone display a shocking coldness and lack of compassion. Non-believers have heard this and it has turned them away. If the Shack can remedy that situation, that is not a bad thing.
This isn't a perfect book and one can find legitimate complaints about the doctrinal issues it addresses. But it is fiction and does not systematically address any doctrinal issues.
The Screwtape letters, Mere Christianity, Pilgrim's Progress, and Dante's Inferno may well be superior to the Shack as literature, but they also have doctrinal inferences with which I would not agree. I still think they are worthwhile books and have benefitted the cause of Christ. Overall, it seems to me that the Shack may also be in this category.
Miss Prata,
Try this little experiment with some of your friends.
Give everyone some paper and a pen.
Ask them to read Psalm 63 and describe all the ways that God is portrayed.
Then have them put a star beside the one that means the most to them personally.
Chances are, everyone will not pick the same example.
But you are all in the Word. And no one is wrong. It's just that some 'word pictures' describing God are more alive and meaningful to individuals than to other individuals.
In 'The Shack' some of the word pictures are able to reach the hearts of people and turn them towards God. For them, being told 'the Shack' is a bad book would be a meaningless statement.
BTW, it's too late. Too many are coming to the Lord because of Paul's book.
WADE facilates between the "Christian message" and the fiction it talks about without making little or any discerning difference. Having this guy in your pulpit is like having OPRAH. Would you have OPRAH in your pulpit? She says she believes in god. This guy has stated he doesn't believe Jesus' death was a full atonement. Do we just give that a pass? Do we just soft pedal his weak statements on other core Christian beliefs? Apparently WADE does and also ignores the message(directive) in II John 10...have nothing to do with with anyone who brings this teaching(other than what our spiritual fathers approved of) neither even greet them. WADE has introduced a heretic to his church and offered credibility for him.
SAD.
"The Shack" is fast becoming a literary phenomenon.
That means it has taken off and crossed over into being a general best-seller.
Because of the controversy over the book's images, there is much heightened interest in the book.
It is too early to say what the ultimate impact of this book will be in the world of 'great literature', but right now, it is slicing through an awful lot of the distance that people have created between themselves and God.
Even in the book, the 'character' of Papa tells Mack that Papa presents himself in a way that cuts through any 'stereotype' that Mack might have had about God as a little old white man with a beard a la Gandolf. Paul Young worked at shaking up our comfort zone stereotypes. And it worked for a lot of those whose 'little old white man with a beard on a throne' image of God just didn't work for them.
One good thing: the more the fundamentalists frown and fuss, the more credibility Paul's book has in a world that is sickened by their interpretation of the fundamentalists as filled with hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
Once people read the book, their view of the ranting fundamentalists
is simply reinforced:
the book presents a loving God.
The fundamentalists never have. At least not in the eyes of the world.
Dear SAD,
You said that 'WADE has introduced a heretic to his church and offered credibility for him.
SAD."
So, tomorrow there will be men who will be baptized at Wade's church because of Paul Young's book and his speeches. Is this also sad?
That men who have been prayed for FOR YEARS by the church have come to Jesus?
Maybe God answered the church's prayers through Paul Young. Something tells me that He did.
That does not make me sad at all.
That makes me think that God is rather wonderful in His ways which are so far above ours: that He can use a hurt man that He healed to bring other hurting people to Jesus. Beautiful to see this.
And on Easter Sunday, too.
Thank God for Paul Young.
Thank God for Wade.
Thank God for the salvation of these men who so needed to be reached, and God found a way to do it.
Thank God.
Signed, NOT SAD,
BUT JOYFUL AND THANKFUL
Elizabeth you said: "2. BOOK: "Is Jesus the only way to heaven?" "Well..." says 'God" "He is the BEST way." p 182"
I have the book in front of me and it does not say this.
There are other quotes that you have given that are either not in the books or they are reworded and taken out of context.
My best advice to you is forget the source you are using and read the book for yourself.
Elizabeth and 12:17 am Anon.
Good words.
Keep up the fight.
As MacArthur said, the church is dumbing down and in many instances doesnt care.
Satan knows if he sidetracks one person, if he distorts the Truth, if he causes us to doubt what we believe, or to think we dont have all we need in God's revealed Word, he has us. He has attacked our source of power.
It's probably going to only get worse:
II Tim 4:1-4
Isolemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.
2 Tim 4:1-4 (NASB77)
Debbie, you are right about the cite given by Elizabeth. It doesn't say that at all. In fact, on page 182 it talks about people being transformed into being sons and daughters of God by being followers of Jesus.
Debbie,
The correct citation was page 110....
the heresy is still the same!
Robert from Geneva
One more thought, since reading and making a decision on this book, I have visited a lot of forums discussing it.
On the book itself's forum, I saw one gal say she didnt need to obey God because He is on her same level. He didnt require any obedience and He was a complete equal. Somewhere else, an atheist said, is this the best you Christians can come up with?
I think even he was thinking we had more going for us than The Shack.
In another instance on a different Book Club forum: A self described pagan/feminist/homosexual/liberal gal said she was going to read the book. I said great, let us know what you think. I wanted to see exactly what changes it would bring to her life. Well....
Her very first post after reading it stated that she now understood, all roads lead to God. There is no one way to Heaven.
She can live exactly as she is living and things will be just fine. In other words, she was right all along and God requires nothing more from her.
Hmmmm.
Then stop all the speculation Gereja and answer the question. Are you a Quaker or a Mormon?
Either way my friend, would you like to know the Jesus Christ of the bible as your personal Savior before it's too late?
By the way Gereja, Grigs, Ryan, various anonymi, and some of you other jokers who think you have it all figured out and consequently have probably stopped studying the bible, I ran across this scripture in my study last night.
"Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge', for by professing it some have swerved from the faith."
The bible is so awesome.
It does seem kind of funny that people are rejecting documentation of heresy because the wrong page was cited. haha
The fact that it is said that God (or Jesus) is simply the best way to heaven is not important.
But the wrong page was cited - GASP!!!
Heresy is heresy no matter what page it's on.
Wade,
Stephen Pruett has given a thoughtful response to questions about the "Shack" that all of us ought to be asking. No ONE book says it all or EVEN says it ALL CORRECTLY. But having heard the author, sitting and asking questions of him, and reading the book, I do not believe the book is heresy.
I'm linking to a blog that has put up a Youtube review that is about ten minutes in length but well worth the time. Of course I would like it because I agree. :)
That link is..http://rebel4reality.blogspot.com/
Seriously, I think we all should question any book written that says things about God. But I do think our comments about any thing should reflect a character changed by the Grace of God instead of a fallen cultural [political] style of antagonism toward those with whom we disagree.
Thanks Stephen Pruett for presenting a graceful way of commenting following Wade's desire as shown in his own writings.
Robert: Again, I have the book in front of me and that quote is not on page 110 either.
I hope you view the video.
Debbie:
I read the book. I stated that earlier.
There are different versions out, large print, paperback, hardcover, etc so I expect that not all the books that are printed have the exact same page numbers matching all the same pages. Nonetheless, the quote is there. The part about 'god' saying Jesus is the "best way" was the last straw for me before deciding, after giving the book many pages of benefit of the doubt, it is heretical.
Anonymous 11:33 said:
"Methinks you are not well-versed in the finer points of literary criticism and certainly have no appreciation for the beauty of literary devices in fiction. In short, you are not literate in the ways of literature...Now. You've just had a little example of a 'literary device'.
I don't expect that you 'got it'.
But, if you did, it's not so hard to understand, is it?"
Thanks for calling me an idiot. Happy Easter to you too.
Elizabeth you are not telling truth
Thanks for calling me an idiot.
your welcomed
you believe in easter?
Prata did not quuote anonymous corect either. bad girl.
fiction can't be heretical.
it isn't true to start with,
if people don't know what fiction is, that is really dum b
I agree with Debbie about Elizabeth.
Elizabeth needs to read the book for herself and not pretend to us that she has read it.
makes you wonder if they even bothered to read the bible
Jax News > FBC blogger feels privacy was violated
Law enforcement says his privacy rights weren't violated, but there are concerns about the investigation
We want to hear from you
A Jacksonville Sheriff's detective investigates possible threats against his own congregation and, despite finding no wrongdoing, outs an anonymous blogger to First Baptist Church. Tell us your thoughts on how the case was handled and if it could or should have been approached differently. E-mail religion reporter Jeff Brumley at jeff.brumley@jacksonville.com. Reader comments will appear in a future edition of The Florida Times-Union and on Jacksonville.com.
A formerly anonymous blogger says his First Amendment and privacy rights may have been violated when authorities revealed his identity to First Baptist Church in Jacksonville.
Police, the State Attorney's Office and a state law enforcement expert disagree.
But experts on criminal investigations, electronic privacy rights and constitutional law say the First Baptist case at the very least raises valid free speech and privacy questions.
Also disputed is whether the detective who identified and outed the blogger acted unethically because he belongs to the downtown megachurch and the security detail of its pastor, the Rev. Mac Brunson.
Some local and state law enforcement officials said Hinson acted ethically in investigating a case involving his own church. He also was correct to reveal Rich's name to church leaders even after determining no crimes were committed, they said. Current and past prosecutors said the subpoenas issued to Google were properly obtained.
"If it happened again we would handle it the same way," Undersheriff Frank Mackesy said.
"Prata did not quuote anonymous corect either. bad girl."
"Prata"? It is not polite to refer to someone like that. Thank you.
And anonymous, is that what passes for Christian debate these days? It is the same snideness and mocking I read on secular blogs. No wonder so many lost people I talk to dismiss us as non-credible.
The three ellipses are a literary device to indicate an editorial snip. Hence the different quoting.
The Shack is fiction. It is also heretical. That, however is not the issue. There are many heretical fiction books out there. Who cares? We can't make a ruckus about all of them.
The issue, as I keep going back to, is that the Christian Booksellers Association, the Christian community, and Christian pulpits accept this book as is and promote it. That's where the heresy comes in. And it is heretical. Any book, fiction or not, that says that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and denies sin's problem, and presents God in a way He does not present Himself is heresy.
After reading it and coming to the conclusion that it is heretical, I could not in good conscience give it to anyone else. Any lost person may get the wrong idea. (As Anonymous asserted in his fine short testimony about the different reactions to the book from lost people he spoke with).
In other words, would you as Christians invite a lost person to a church where the preacher stands at the pulpit and says "Mother God, we understand that Jesus is only the 'best' way to heaven and we are grateful you do not punish sin"? No. Again, the book is fiction but its acceptance by the Christian communities I mentioned above means that by proxy the precepts inside the book are also accepted.
Well, I don't accept them. I never will. No matter what.
I would not hand that book to any person just as I would not invite any person to a church that espouses the same. Not if I don't want my conscience seared with conviction of wrongdoing and remain "approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel," I won't. Compromise is a killer.
People who love to talk context....which is hard to believe we are doing this with a fiction book, but on page 110, where it says I am the best way, it is Jesus speaking in the context of how the main human character feels about relating to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the "best way" for a human to understand the other two because He is also human, like us.
Even in fictional and allegorical books context is important.
But, arguing about this stuff is fruitless. Seeing fruit in lives transformed is what matters.
Prata, how many baptism at your church today. If Preacher preaches hateful God, no one I bet.
Soon, all there no one comes and all hate dies out. Unless your children keep it going.
"Prata, how many baptism at your church today. If Preacher preaches hateful God, no one I bet...
Soon, all there no one comes and all hate dies out. Unless your children keep it going."
100 @ sunrise, 400 expected to main service. Thanks be to God.
Please do not refer to me disrespectfully by my last name. I won't respond to impoliteness. Thank you
Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always.
Praise His name! He has won the victory! 1 Corinthians 15:57
"But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
But you need not stay in defeat. He extended His hands on the cross and now to you and anyone reading this who is lost. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phil 4:13.
All things Anonymous! Come live in the world of strength and endless possibility. Jesus is waiting for YOU! :)
Today Wade baptizes the fruit of an experience provided by God through the writer William Paul Young at Enid.
If baptisms aren't fruit, what is?
Seems to me, Prata has something against these baptisms.
That is not biblical or Christian.
Prata should rejoice for these men, not curse God's methods for bringing them to Him.
Shame of Prata who claims she is a writer and doesn't know fiction is not fact.
Shame on you Prata. Shame.
Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always.
Prata acts crazy woman.
Anonymous, please do not derail the thread into ad hominem attacks on me personally. It is not civil, it is not fruitful and it is not acceptable. If yo have something to say about what Wade said about The Shack go ahead. Otherwise I think it is best to refrain from succumbing to your baser qualities and making the discussion about your feelings for me and to remain respectful to what Pr. Wade is trying to do on this blog.
I really do not like to be called Prata.
Thank you. I am headed to church so Happy Easter everyone! Praise His name and He is risen!
Prata say 'Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always.'
Anonymous you better look out.
You are dealing with the Holy Spirit.
Sees all, knows alll. And She's gonna get ya.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOH !
Prata realy is a 'know it all'.
Some discussions taking place on the blogosphere on Fbc Jax Watchdog, both current and past:
-----------------------------------
Pastor Wade Burleson's blog:
Comment by Wade on Fbc Jax blog
The Untouchables: Spiritually Elite Leaders and the Unwillingness to Be Held Accountable
Lessons in Dealing with a Disgruntled Member
Anonymous Writing Is Not Intrinsically Evil
Spiritual Abuse Masked as Spiritual Authority
Your Honor, Please Help Us Understand
The High Cost of Stifling Criticism and Dissent
Abuse of Authority: It Must Not Be Ignored
-----------------------------------
New BBC Open Forum Blog:
Who's really the sociopath here?
This is the "Biblical Pattern" for Church Discipline?
The Legacy of Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler
Darrell Gilyard Arrested While Patterson Attempts Damage Control
Some Thoughts on "Church Authority" and "Church Discipline"
Spending God's Money
Jacksonville, FL Church Cover-up - Déjà Vu, Bellevue?
-----------------------------------
ExChristian.net > Church pulls strings in an attempt to muzzle a blogger critical of the leadership
Science Blog > Pharyngula > Mac Brunson, Baptist tyrant and greedy Pharisee
-----------------------------------
Baptist Life Forums:
Brunson re: blogger "sociopath...obsessive compulsive"
Making criticism criminal
Church discipline according to FBCJax
FBC Jax Calls for Sever of Ties to Lifeway Over "The Shack"
-----------------------------------
Baptist Planet > Fbc Jax posts
-----------------------------------
From Stop Baptist Predators:
Bully Bylaws
Mac Brunson on Gilyard & Patterson
-----------------------------------
Women In Ministry > Reaching unity in the faith without authoritarian control
The Big Daddy Weave > Megachurch Passes Resolution Against Blogger
-----------------------------------
Jim Smyrl of FBCJax says the average baptist church member does not have training in "critical thinking" and thus is not capable of "filtering bad theology", and thus should not be reading books like "The Shack", and thus Lifeway should not be selling them.
1. 'THE AVERAGE BAPTIST'
2. does not have training in critical thinking skills
3. should not be reading books
'like' 'the Shack'
Jim Smyrl knows a lot about the Baptists of FBCJax. After all, their lack of critical thinking skills has fostered the 'leadership they deserve'.
Strange. Do they believe in discernment as a gift of the Spirit? I guess not from what Smyrl reveals about his congregation.
With Smyrl doing their PR work, these guys won't be able to hold their heads up in Baptist land.
Between Smyrl and Mac, they aint lookin to good.
Thank you, Thy Peace. The site you gave for the video review of 'The Shack' is very thought provoking. (On M.B.'s Reality Check)
Good to hear someone speak about it in a way that is literate and probes the motives of others who denounce a fiction book as a doctrinal statement.
Good video.
God is sovreign, those people would have come to Him and been baptized with or without Young.
But, even in my church, if the pastor let Young speak it would offend some. I not only ran into those unbelievers who now feel justified to live anyway they want, but I ran into women who stated they felt very uncomfortable reading the book, and it bothered them deeply.
I can see Young doing speaking engagements, I cant see him taking over a sunday pulpit.
And you know it is rude, the way you are attacking Elizabeth, and Gereja (who hasnt been here for awhile near as I can tell).
And it is fruitless and pointless to ask someone how many people have been baptized in their church today. It's also immature.
We're not about numbers. You dont know what kind of church someone goes to, or what goes on there.
You dont know what certain Baptist churches do opposed to other ones and you cannot lump them all together.
The pastor who started this blog has a right to say anything or do anything he wants. Some of us totally disagree with his choice of Scripture at the beginning, which is supposed to justify having Young in his church.
You can see the level of maturity around here going down, when people start treating people like they do.
But once again, it proves that when defending this book, people have checked their thinking at the door, given in to emotional ear tickling feel-good Christianity and as others have stated,, compromised. I think if Mr. Young takes the pulpits, he then becomes a teacher. And that carries with it a huge amount of responsibility.
Most churches nowadays will not let just anyone run a class, or teach a course or lead a service.
So, that then is between him and God but,it makes him very accountable.
Account of Luke 24
34 . . . , The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
PEACE BE UNTO YOU
Here are ALL the posts made by Mary Burleson on "The Shack"
'Most churches nowadays will not let just anyone run a class, or teach a course or lead a service.'
Christians don't believe that any people should be referred to as 'just anyone'. There is no 'just anyone' now that Jesus has taught differently.
Oh so wrong.
Most churches will not let anyone who shows up and wants to speak, or teach or lead a class do so without training, or approval.
And so it should be.
Churches have their right to institute their own guidelines, whether they be denominational or not.
Gee, people sure do pick on words on this blog.
People who use terms like 'just anyone' have contempt for others who don't live up to 'their standards'.
They see some as 'better than' others.
So wrong.
We are told that those who take the high seats will be sent lower, and those they sought to put low will be raised high.
Read your bible. It's in there.
People need to start reading the Bible and believing what it says and stop trying to hold others in contempt. Read your Bible.
Help for the person who holds 'just anyone' in contempt:
"Treating Strangers With Brotherly Kindness.
It is not our job to judge people. God desires that all of us treat everyone with kindness. Showing human kindness to strangers is a core virtue of being a Christian. God will judge us on how we treat others. Matthew 25 advises us to treat strangers with brotherly kindness ...
'for I was a stranger and you took me not in'
Just anyone?
Not welcomed?
Read your Bible.
Learn about Jesus.
"Churches have their right to institute their own guidelines"
Not if they claim to be Christian churches.
Then, they need to follow HIS guidelines.
What kind of churches are YOU talking about?
Do they preach contempt for others like you do?
What contempt?
The point is, people who hold Sunday school positions, Bible study leadership positions, elderships, in most churches have a chain of accountability they must go through in order to lead or teach.
Where is the contempt in that?
So if my pastor decided to have Benny Hinn speak one Sunday, do you think if our church didnt go along with what he teaches or preaches we should have him speak at our church? Would we want him to if we didnt agree with him?
No.
The point is, in my church at least, I doubt my pastor would invite someone controversial, and I know he wouldnt be able to invite anyone to take his pulpit unless it met the approval of the elders. That is as it should be.
If you want a church with less rules, and less structure, you can set one up in your home and do what you want.
If you are a community of believers catering to young and old, and different backgrounds, you owe it to them to maintain a standard for which they joined your church. A non-charismatic church doesnt want to all of a sudden start letting people talk in tongues in their services.
People would leave.
People have obvious different needs and tastes in churches. That's why we have them to begin with. There are grey areas of doctrine and there are areas which cant be messed with (try some apologetics).
Yeah, that is contempt.
Having structure.
Once again, thank you for proving that those who are fighting so hard for The Shack, are those who throw out the doctrine, the theology, the structure.
Jesus loves everyone, saves everyone, and no one ends up in hell. To oppose the Shack means you dont love anyone as Christ said to love them.
Right.
Btw, it doesnt mean you hate someone if you disagree with them and dont approve of their theology.
People have obvious different needs and tastes in churches. That's why we have them to begin with.
A 'shopping mall' approach.
You get to pick the church that matches up with the way you treat others? Oh and of course, you are not going to hell, right?
Sheeeesh.
How a logical discussion about having someone preach in your church that your congregation may not entirely approve of or be in tune with turns to "how you treat others" is beyond me. Remind me to tell the pastor and elders that they might want to consider a more varied speaker list next time he is away or they might be considered to be treating others the wrong way. Uh huh.
just quoting you
do you realize what kind of person you sound like?
very contemptible of others
Don't bother. He's right. It is all 'beyond him'. He's too busy congratulating himself over his superiority and looking his nose down at 'just anyone' to understand. Churches are full of this kind of mess. But not as full as they used to be. Church membership nationwide is down 10 percent this year.
Looks like the churches are 'unloading' the undesirables so that the 'righteous' will not be contaminated. What a stench.
If anyone is tired of reading the anonymous fest here I might suggest a sermon on 1 John. I was so blessed and encouraged by this sermon that I intend to catch up this week and next on the next 12 sermons in the series. Pastor Wade is into chapter 3 now of 1 John. If you turn your nose up at expository preaching then you need to listen to this series. Wade is a unique expositor, but even if you are not a big fan of Wade, there is so much God in the sermon that you just might forget he is standing there. ;)
Cick Here
Here's a pretty dog-gone good Non-Easter Easter message*. Actually, the whole service was magnanimous.
*This message includes an update on Wade's son as well as an interesting story about the testimony of Paul Young. Also, the baptism portion of the service and even the offertory (REALLY!) were a blessing. What a ministry. I am humbled and encouraged by the true worship lifted up at Emmanuel.
Thanks!
Click Here
Umm, my church is just fine and my pastor is one of the top, well known expositors in the country.
Which he humbly would deny. We love him, he is a humble man.
And again, to state that one's pastor owes it to the congregation to have people in leadership positions or teaching or speaking positions along the lines that that particular church abides by, is not showing contempt for anyone.
It's showing order and abiding by that church's guidelines. (which some have more of than others).
But, of course on this blog as in The Shack, churches are frowned on by many.
Quite often followers of The Shack tear down the local church body.
You just showed why you think it isnt operating correctly. You apparently think any order it would work to establish is wrong and unloving.
Btw, one of the other local churches here in town has over 15000 members, so I guess we're not showing that much contempt around here.
The body is hard at work around here, winning souls and teaching the Word.
I just watched Wade's sermon and thought it interesting that Paul Young wrote FOR HIS CHILDREN.
Not to make money, or to impress 'people', or to 'make a doctrinal statement';
but FOR HIS CHILDREN.
So Paul puts a lot of love into this book, so much so that it spills out and runs all over the place. No pride, no ambition, no 'second-guessing of gee-will-my-readers-like-this'. Just love.
For his children. A gift.
So God likes the book. And wants it for His children. So something happens and the book is a 'run-away' hit.
Be careful what you write out of love for those dearest to you: God might take it and give it to His other children, the ones who don't know how much He loves them.
It could happen. It did happen.
Then the ones who aren't His children will come after you. Why?
Because they don't want people to know that God loves them. They want people to be afraid of God instead. These are scary people.
Be careful of these people.
KMC and Anon: Thanks for your comments about today's sermon at Emmanuel.
This sermon is for me. This is the right message for me now.
Amen.
If you watch the video, it's titled "When Christ Appears the Second Time", April 12, 2009 - Part 13 of series (1 Jn. 2:28 - 3:1-3). The sermon is from 32:00 to 59:00.
You can also hear the mp3, from #13. When Christ Appears the Second Time (I John 2:28-3:3) of the series I John: The Christian and Complete Joy. The sermon notes are in that link.
Interesting highlights as related to The Shack and others as noted by KMC:
43:10 to 52:37 - WPY.
Did you know WPY won $250,000- in 2000, in the show "Who wants to be a millionaire"?
Start of Paul Young's run; Michael Shutterly is a Phone-A-Friend (ABC) (232-3)
Paul Young wins $250,000 (ABC) (234-9)
Also, WPY started a foundation to help women being trafficked in slavery.
The remarkable thing about WPY was what happened after he won $250,000-. This is the heart of today's sermon.
The below links are not related to WPY, but to women being trafficked in slavery: (All the links are from NYT and the author of the posts is Nicholas D. Kristof).
Girls For Sale
Bargaining For Freedom
Going Home, With Hope
Loss of Innocence
Stopping The Traffickers
The Illiterate Surgeon
About Pastor Wade's son Boe and his Hernia: 54:37 to 56:07
About the offering: 59:25 to 59:55 and 1:01 to 1:02. Amen to Meg Miller. This is truly amazing about Emmanuel.
This is truly horrifying:
NYT > The Girls Next Door
If all 13 heresies listed by Robert are reported accurately, then the man truly is a heretic. As a pastor, I would never permit him to speak in our church.
But again, I haven't read the book but am trusting Robert on his quotes.
I am going to buy my seventh copy of The Shack tomorrow. I gave away my first copy after reading it and then I bought 4 copies for my family. My husband hadn’t read it so I bought one for him so he could read it before the author came to our church, Emmanuel. Last night we had guests for dinner and talk turned to The Shack so I gave them our last copy. I have one that was autographed by the author and I am not giving that one away.
But this morning in church we got to witness the real effects of The Shack. We went to late service because one of the members of my Sunday School class was being baptized. To my surprise her husband and her son also entered the baptismal waters. After the service I told her I didn’t expect that. She said that after hearing William Paul Young when he was at Emmanuel they realized it was time for them to be baptized.
As I have reflected on that and the comments on this blog it reminds me of Matthew 9:3, 10:34, 12:34, etc. where the pharisaical religious leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy despite those who he is bringing into the kingdom of God.
The Shack could be the beginnings of a great revival. I hope that some of its overzealous religious critics do not quench the spirit of these new believers by demanding some sort of doctrinal litmus test.
And I hope that all of us—those who oppose the book—and those who recommend the book—have the discernment to ascribe the works of Beelzebub to the father of lies and the works of the Holy Spirit to the kingdom of God. May God give us discernment.
Mona Loewen
Pastor,
Suppose you had never read the Scriptures and a missionary came to your village but your witch-doctor tells you not to listen when a missionary reads from a book he calls 'The Bible'.
The witch-doctor will lose his power over you if you listen to The Bible.
So the witch-doctor says 'The Bible' is full of heresies.
But you 'trust' this witch-doctor.
He's trying to keep you from making a mistake that takes you away from his control.
So you stay the same, no new ideas, and life goes on.
Listen to yourself.
Inside of you dwells the Holy Spirit. Robert is a good person. But he is not The Spirit.
Robert means well. But he does not understand that this book is an allegorical work of fiction.
And Robert has no problem telling other people how they 'should' think and what they 'should' believe.
So what do you do?
You can decide to allow another person to do your thinking for you.
But what about next time, and the next time, and the next?
Do not give your trust to anyone who says he will do your thinking for you and that you don't have to examine something for yourself.
Assume responsibility for your own opinions. Use the gifts of discernment from the Holy Spirit.
You don't need for Robert, God Bless Him, to 'excuse you' from making up your own mind.
Someday, you will come to a life-changing crossroads: you will be given choices of which way to go. If you make the decision yourself, you will have taken personal responsibility for your choice.
If you allow another to choose for you, remember the warnings of the Lord: that many will come to lead you astray. Be careful in whom you place your 'trust'. As me and my house, we will trust in the Lord.
Amen to Anon who wrote this:
"I just watched Wade's sermon and thought it interesting that Paul Young wrote FOR HIS CHILDREN.
Not to make money, or to impress 'people', or to 'make a doctrinal statement';
but FOR HIS CHILDREN.
So Paul puts a lot of love into this book, so much so that it spills out and runs all over the place. No pride, no ambition, no 'second-guessing of gee-will-my-readers-like-this'. Just love.
For his children. A gift.
So God likes the book. And wants it for His children. So something happens and the book is a 'run-away' hit.
Be careful what you write out of love for those dearest to you: God might take it and give it to His other children, the ones who don't know how much He loves them.
It could happen. It did happen.
Then the ones who aren't His children will come after you. Why?
Because they don't want people to know that God loves them. They want people to be afraid of God instead. These are scary people.
Be careful of these people."
"If anyone is tired of reading the anonymous fest here I might suggest a sermon on 1 John. I was so blessed and encouraged by this sermon that I intend to catch up this week and next on the next 12 sermons in the series. Pastor Wade is into chapter 3 now of 1 John."
Thanks, Kevin. It was excellent and convicting. 1 John is one of my favorite books in scripture but sadly, not preached on often.
From 1 John 2:27-29
2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Is it true that when Jesus ascended into heaven, He was man and God? Or did He just go to heaven as God? This is confusing.
"The statement in the B F & M 1963 that Christ is the criterion for interpretation of scripture at least reminds us that we must be very careful if our interpretation seems at odds with the character and teachings of Christ."
Translation--As liberal "christians", we need an out to be able to avoid having to agree with what the Bible clearly teaches about homosexuality or women pastors or anything else that we just don't like. This way, we can say "Well that can't be what it means because surely Jesus was to loving to ever think that". It was a nice loophole. I'm sorry to see that it's gone.
Elizebeth Prata--You go, girl!! Don't let 'em get ya down!! Don't give up and don't lose hope.
"The statement in the B F & M 1963 that Christ is the criterion for interpretation of scripture at least reminds us that we must be very careful if our interpretation seems at odds with the character and teachings of Christ."
So, Joe. What scriptures would you want to see interpreted in a way that IS AT ODDS with the character and teachings of Christ?
Can you list these scriptures and decribe an example of how you think they could be BETTER interpreted than in accordance with the character and teachings of Christ?
Otherwise, what is wrong with the original statement?
You know, fundamentalists are getting their butts kicked and are reacting rather strangely. But we know, Joe, that you will be able to give us examples of how you think that a scripture can be better translated by the spirit of the B.I. fundamentalists instead of the Spirit that witnesses to the character and teachings of Christ. So, Joe, teach us.
Thank you so much for the encouragement Joe!
All that matters to me is to offer the gospel in love, to contend for the faith without compromise, for His name and glory only.
Man, I love the bible! I'm sad that people accept The Shack as Christian fiction. It is fiction. But it's not Christian.
:)
Fiction can indeed be heretical if it misrepresents what is true.
Elizabeth Prata said
"Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always."
No. Fiction is fiction.
Not doctrine.
Dear Joe,
I like the '63 BF&M much better than the 2000 version. Our church subscribes to it; in fact, every church I have served subscribed to it, and none of them would be considered "liberal" under most anyone's microscope.
I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, and indeed believe that it is a sin--period, end of paragraph.
Whether or not God is soverign to call into His service anyone He so chooses, into whatever position He chooses, be they male or female--well, that is a different question, but my answer does not rely on the "Christ criteria" from the '63 BF&M. Rather my answer depends on what the Bible says, although I am sure you and I would interpret the pertinent passages differently. But my point is that I do not use any BF&M as a creed, which is exactly what one is doing when you use either the '63 or the 2000 as your criteria for interpretation. Like an earlier generation of Baptists, I cry, "No creed but the Bible."
On a more personal note, let me mention two things, neither of which is a "personal attack." First--and this one is actually a compliment--you sign your name to what you write. I affirm you on that, especially when on this comment thread there are so many anonies, on any number of sides. I recognize that some missionaries need to do that for security reasons, but I doubt that most (if any) of these anonymous commentators fit that criteria. So thanks for taking responsible ownership of your words. Second, you have a tendency toward sarcasm, just as do I. I have learned though--painfully for the most part--that it is rarely effective, especially on a blog such as this. And I was convicted in my sarcasm by the very words of Jesus, who said, "Let your yes be yes, and your no, no." With all due respect, I would love to see your comments free of sarcasm.
John Fariss
B.I. INCOMING
The BFM "criterion" statement has divided so many in the SBC and I think a reasoned person could sit back and say the fighting is all for naught. The real question here, to my knowledge, has never been asked: What do YOU mean by criterion?
I think the 2000-ioners are saying that "the agent" of interpretation is the Holy Spirit. I agree with them. But their statement uses the word "criterion." So what does that mean?
The 1963'ers [I think] believe that the Bible must be interpreted in light of the central theme of Christ--His redemptive plan, His sinless life, His acts of love and kindness. I of course would agree with them as well.
Keep in mind that prefer the 2000 over the 1963 for a lot of reasons, but I think the 2000 is sloppy. It is unnecessarily divisive. When we agree in essence but disagree in semantics, then neither side used the Spirit nor Christ to "write down those things most surely believed among us."
The entire statement needs to be removed. The early Fathers never argued over this to my knowledge.
A couple facts for consideration:
1. The HS is the agent of interpretation.
2. Christ is the central character in the Bible. His redemptive plan is the central theme.
3. The only way to know Christ or to know about Him is through knowledge found about Him in Scripture which can only be enlightened to us through the Spirit.
Conclusion: this notion of the criterion? Totally wrong question to be asking.
k
"Man, I love the bible! I'm sad that people accept The Shack as Christian fiction. It is fiction. But it's not Christian.
:)"
Maybe...maybe not...but I am persuaded that it's author is.
:)
Amen, Kevin. Well said, and it even echos things I have said to people in face-to-face conversations.
John Fariss
The author very well could be Christian. He likely is. That's great. It is not for me to say who is real and who is not, though. It is actually beside the point.
All I can reliably comment on is the words produced and measure them to the bible. And I found the book wanting.
Found this which is a blessing to read:
"July 2, 2008
Shae @ 7:53 pm:
I just finished the book. I lost a son, Caleb, some twenty years ago to heart disease at the age of 17 1/2 months old. He was the only child I ever had. You can’t imagine the healing that I am walking through as a result of your story. I love the Lord and have walked with him for many years - many angry and hurt years, but oh how I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit lifting The Great Sadness from my being. THANK YOU so very much for writing this wonderful story - it is changing my life."
With all the testimonies of the healing brought about by 'The Shack', one wonders why people like Joe, Elizabeth, Robert, Grigs, and so forth are so afraid of it. This book absolutely destroys their version of God.
I mean like wipes it out completely. The people on our blog who hate 'The Shack' do so because they hate the idea that people will read it and come to know a loving God. These people don't want that. God help them.
Elizabeth Prata said
"Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always."
She sounds wierd.
Maybe she's nuts.
What audacity to drag God into this Shack book thing as though it is more important than one or any text of Scripture.
How emotions run amock and mistakenly deemed as spirituality--or biblical spirituality. Do you think God is interested in sensationalism? Remember He killed 2 million Israelites in the wilderness and only let Caleb and Joshua into the promised land.
Just because Wade invited the author to his church does not mean God is so impressed with either the author or Wade's method: going for anything sensational, fad and trends . . . That is all. It will die out soon--remember DaVinci Code?
Baptists are known to be addicted to numbers; charismatics are addicted to sensationalism; and both will use all means, all kinds of gimmicks to get crowds
Lu Mo Nyet
Elizebeth Prata--You go, girl!! Don't let 'em get ya down!! Don't give up and don't lose hope.
Sun Apr 12, 11:21:00 PM 2009
But Joe, she is trying to teach men. Or is that only not allowed when standing behind a pulpit in a building called a 'church'?
Afraid,
who is afraid of the big bad Shack.
Opposed to it but not afraid....all idols will fail!
Robert from Geneva
Elizabeth good job standing for the truth.
Lydia said in response to Joe:
Elizebeth Prata--You go, girl!! Don't let 'em get ya down!! Don't give up and don't lose hope.
Sun Apr 12, 11:21:00 PM 2009
But Joe, she is trying to teach men. Or is that only not allowed when standing behind a pulpit in a building called a 'church'?
Lydia thank you for the comment but please don't use me as a platform in a separate argument. I am not trying to teach anyone. I am simply sharing my opinion/reaction to the book Wade posted about.
"All I can reliably comment on is the words produced and measure them to the bible. And I found the book wanting."
I am pretty sure Paul Young would agree with you. I wonder however if you have listened to the services at Emmanuel in wich Paul speaks to his book and theology? I admit that there are a few tertiary points over which I simply need to ponder and pray. But I appreciated his point of view. The man presents a point of view which must be considered when doing a comprehensive study of both the trinity (relations in the Godhead) and marriage (relationships between a man and women).
In fact, his entire message is wrapped up in one word: "relationships." And 3 kinds in particular:
Inward: relationship with self
Outward: relationships with others
upward: relationship with God
Just a reminder that the devil goes around seeking whom he may devour!
Robert from Geneva
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/06/shack-its-new-age-leaven.html
New Age Leaven
Robert from Geneva
http://hereiblog.com/2008/08/08/the-shack-review/
Robert from Geneva
Elizabeth: Lydia is right if you are trying to change minds, which it seems you are, you are also trying to teach men. I have no problem with that, but Joe has. Evidently unless the one teaching agrees with him. :)
Also you intimate as if there are others who don't believe the Bible, which is not true, it's easy to say that you believe the Bible, but read what scripture has to say concerning a personal relationship with God, Christ. That seems to be missing in this conversation, yet that is the crux of what the Shack deals with.
It's just hard for me to believe you have actually read the book, I realize I am possibly accusing you but you have gotten so many passages wrong, it's hard to see that we read the same book. It's so clear to me what the Shack is saying.
Debbie:
Thank you for the insight. I won't be drawn into the teaching men discussion or whether sharing an opinion is teaching because it is not germane to the posting, which is The Shack.
for the fourth time...
I READ THE BOOK.
OK?
Elizabeth Prata said
"Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always."
Satanic
just nuts
she puffeth up
when offended
a poster girl for the B.I. . . .
knows it all
OK?
"she"s been here before but as a he
anyone recognize the personality?
Lets play guess who said this:
"The Scriptures do not teach unconditional love "
"Because God did not die on the Cross."
"I know who you are. I always know"
Maybe we should have a contest for the B.I. quote of the week.
Robert,
You have posted dozens and dozens of times on my blog. I have never removed a comment and appreciate you as a fellow Southern Baptist. It is my belief that Southern Baptists should enjoy our diversity and appreciate our differences. You and I are in agreement in many areas, and different in probably only a few.
However, please receive this comment the way I intend it - no animosity, just an observation.
If I were not a Southern Baptist and you were the only person I knew who represented Southern Baptists, and I read all your comments pronouncing people heretics, others' writings heretical, etc . . .
I would be very uninterested in joining Southern Baptist work.
If we are having problems keeping young, conservative Bible believing preachers affiliating with the Southern Baptist Convention, it just might be the problem lies with those of us who are Southern Baptists allowing a handful act of us to act as if they speak for the majority. I for one am glad people challenge you and Elizabeth's pronouncements of "heresy."
In His Grace,
Wade
You know, trying to express an opinion has nothing to do with trying to teach men.
As a new member of a Baptist church (formerly a different nondenom. church member of 25 plus years) I know there are scores of us out there who do not feel comfortable with what The Shack contains.
Therein lies the problem of the book. You all think it is wrong to oppose it for whatever the reason.
It is not a Baptist thing, it is way bigger and more than just Baptists are disputing the book. Michael Youssef and others are not Baptists, to my knowledge.
Though I know some may oppose with more heresy hunter intentions than others, some (housewives, students, church members, authors) oppose for real issues and reasons that are not so dramatic.
Unfortunately today, just about anyone can run a blog, but not everyone has access to a blog and cannot get the word out on how they feel.
And everyday converstations going on among friends, shows they can fairly and rationally oppose the book and remain friends.
I'm still going back to the gal I met on the web, who said I see I can be a feminist, homosexual liberal gal who now knows there are many many ways to God and I dont have to change.
The book unfortunately didnt help her. And I have had to clear up some confusion it left behind.
Mr Young most likely is a Christian, but he denies some important things in that radio interview, which I hope he soon clears up with the public.
New Baptist/former undenom:
Do you believe in the loving Presence of God?
If we are having problems keeping young, conservative Bible believing preachers affiliating with the Southern Baptist Convention, it just might be the problem lies with those of us who are Southern Baptists allowing a handful act of us to act as if they speak for the majority. I for one am glad people challenge you and Elizabeth's pronouncements of "heresy."
Notice you didnt say one thing in terms of the actual fact.
Patripassiomism is not a heresy because the church at corinth practiced it or
Paul Young does not believe in Modalism because this is what he means when he says.......
Lastly I did not grew up as a Southern Baptist.....being a Christian is much more important than any Southern Baptist tradition.
Its not about you or me Wade its about Gods Glory.
The Shack is ALL about man and what he wants for mans glory.
To recap here is a list of evangelical leaders who call the Shack heresy.
Chuck Colson, Albert Mohler, Michael Youssof, Norm Giesler,Tim Challies, Randy White.
Robert from Geneva
500+ comments! Apparently some of us feel strongly about this book. I don't think that any who read The Shack leave with a bad impression of Christianity which is a significant difference from many books that we are relatively silent about.
I remember a comment about the Church of Christ (in Tennessee they seemed to preach more against Baptists than against sin). "They feel that Baptists are close enough to the truth that they are a perversion." Do any of us know of anyone who became a Christian because of someone's beliefs regarding modalism or patripassiomism? Fortunately few non-Christians will read down to this point.
Now are we going to have a blog on the songs that many of us sing? There is bound to be more heresy there.
Bennett Willis
Yep, guess what? I do.
I was born into a family where we believed in Him, but didnt know about salvation until I was 11.
I never doubted His existence or His love. I never questioned my faith after I was born again.
I grew up carrying a Bible around as a little kid and never once didnt think God existed.
I never had a struggle with my churches, until one tiny incident two years ago.
Never church hopped, never got into conflicts.
Had one little situation with two people and felt like trying something new so I joined a local Baptist church, (which often functions a bit out of the Baptist box as it were.) I'm there for the teaching style, not the denom.
Have taken numerous Bible Study courses and sat under two pastors who teach verse by verse.
That study has been enough for me, to feel His love, presence, grace and mercy. I didnt need any book to convince me, and I can barely grasp the incredibile way He shows Himself to me in His Word and through prayer.
And I have an unbelieving spouse who discusses the Bible with me, and is learning about God from such discussions.
That person would not be drawn to a fiction book, but they are intrigued with the Word of God, and constantly asking what the Word says about this or that topic.
I would rather have one person present them with a Bible, if ever I were not here to discuss it with them, than anything else--any other idea, philosophy, story etc. I'm pretty sure they recognize God at work in our family. They observe it, make reference to it, and quite often will say, "you must have prayed for that to happen."
I'm not a heresy hunter, I dont have a blog or web presence (save for a business blog). I'm simply in agreement with well known pastors, teachers and common folk who have a problem with the book.
I can understand why they do, I think they have every right to believe it.
Some may read the book and feel something, some may not.
Personally I had nothing lacking in my relationship with God which the book fulfilled. I've shared the same story with others on the web (and I belong to quite a few groups, Christian, non and other). I would never ever think it is right to say, 'well the book didnt mean anything to you so you must have a problem with your relationship with God, love of HIm or others or any of the other arguements I keep hearing.
Good hearted, Bible believing people are in some cases bothered by, and questioning this book.
It doesnt mean they dont know God, dont have a good relationship with God, are tied down by the church or theology or doctrine or whatever. I think, after spending time on some well known author's Christian blogs, you see more people learning of God and having a deep relationship with Him because of their studies, and prayer and devotional life and you notice that the author probably intentionally wont even give an opinion of the book. People are in love with God without bringing it up. Just as a side note, I wonder what would have happened if it had been written by a woman? Just a thought....
It may have been written for children, with no intent of receiving this kind of attention. But, once it became a topic for Christian speaking engagements (and there are many denominations and pastors involved in the debate over whether that is right or wrong), then it becomes a vehicle for teaching. And we know teachers have a higher accountability to God.
I go back to that very fair and balanced radio interview where we deal with what Christ did or didnt do on the Cross, as well as the El Shaddai ideas, as well as that we cant know for sure if an unrepentant person will or wont be with God. There are an awful lot of interviews with Mr. Young, where people are saying "I dont quite agree with you but" or "I know this is a controversial part of your book and people dont like it but...". How many excuses do we need to make? How much rationalzing do we need to do?
At least with the Bible we can (and should) be agreeing on the basic foundations of the Christian faith. Grey areas aside, we have a lot to agree on. I think that more people should be as in love with the Word of God as any book, person or idea.
The problem is, they dont know how to study, they dont take time to study, they dont want to study.
It's all right there, and it is enough to teach us about Him and relationship with the Trinity.
If it wasnt, people in other lands wouldnt be dying to get one page of it.
And for the record, my spouse, who is pretty wise said: The Gospel is meant to be studied, but also very easy to grasp isnt it? It isnt meant to be cluttered and confused, but made very understandable like (insert my former pastor's name) makes it.
I love to hear Bible pages flipping and see people piled into churches with floor seating only.
I dont think they are looking for anything less than meeting God on those pages. And I dont think they are finding less. I do think some of the more troubled and questioning souls have background baggage that gives them a bad taste for, and a misunderstanding of God. I know people who are bitter with the church, but really it is God they are mad at, and they use their church experiences as a way to explain it.
Perhaps those who love this book so much, ought to be more forgiving of those who do not.
Perhaps they could be handing out a Bible first or along with.
New believers dont need the confusion this book hands to them.
They need to be devouring pages of Scripture, and thrilled with mining out those nuggets of gold.
The Missy Project isnt going to accomplish what the Word can.
It simply cant. People have died and been imprisoned over the Book, not a book.
We should be adults, admit it is controversial and treat it that way, I think. If you are a mature person who can handle it, fine. If you can guide a person who isnt, through it and point them to the bible, great.
But to hand one out, abandon that person and expect them to discover how to be saved, how to repent and how to see their need for cleansing from sin, well...as that one author said, you can love them right down the path to hell because you didnt show them the narrow path.
Robert, there are way more than that, I just cant think of them at the moment.
And, the lay person's opinion is just as important (though I know what you are trying to say, and I agree with your posts). For one, the Calvary Chapel movement has also had problem with the book.God bless and have a good week.
Robert, do you believe in the loving Presence of God? God is immutable, He does not change.
Is He loving? Or not?
Which do you believe?
Bennet Willis,
I don't think that any who read The Shack leave with a bad impression of Christianity which is a significant difference from many books that we are relatively silent about.
Are you saying that it all about peoples impression about Christianity?
I would argue that regeneration is ALL about what God does in our lives, not the impression that others have of an idol they have made up.
Modalism and patripassionism both take away from Gods glory. Isnt that precisely why Phillips , Craig , and Dean should never be allowed in a Southern Baptist church.
Finally, At the Southern Baptist Church
that I attend here in Nashville. I can tell you that we dont sing songs that
represent false theology. I would think that it is quite unique even here in Nashville.
Robert from Geneva
Robert said, "Patripassiomism is not a heresy because the church at corinth practiced it"
What is 'patripassiomism'.
Is it heresy, Robert, or not?
What DO you believe?
Robert, were you raised in the Oneness Pentecostal Religion?
Patripassionism states that there is only one person, instead of three in the Godhead. God reveals himself in three modes, the father as the creator and lawgiver, the Son as the redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the giver of grace and the regenerator. The word Patripassionism means (patri) Father (pasion) suffers. Patripassionists believe the father was born of the virgin Mary, lived, and co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. Patripassionism states that the Son was the Father in a different mode and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father. Sabelliunism denies that there is a trinity and that instead there is one essence, interchangeable as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, each appearing at different periods of time, not existing together. Scripture used to support this position are passages like John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” and John 14:9, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Today Oneness Pentecostalism shares the same beliefs as Patripassionism. Sabellianism gains attractiveness from its emphasis on there being one and only one God.
Anon,
You missed the fact that I was using that statement to make a hypothetical question for Wade!
No I am not or ever have been a oneness pentecostal. My parents were missionaries in New Guineau. Our home church was a Conservative Baptist church in Sioux City, Iowa.
I am speaking here of the Conservative Baptist Denomination. I now attend a Southern Baptist Church whose pastor preaches the doctrines of grace.
Thanks for illustrating why those doctrines are heretical and important in answer to Bennett Willis.
Also the list of names was not meant to be exhaustive.
Robert from Geneva
Robert, you name-dropper.
Chuck Colson? When he lost his feed-bag politically, he comes after the money in religion.
Christian? Hell no.
That opportunist?
Have SOME discernment.
Are we judging by ones language....I think I will take Chuck Colson!
Even Wade should not tolerate that on his "Christian" blog
Robert from Geneva
anony 2:42,
That's a less than loving attitude.
:)
Too bad you don't feel like talking about the points in Chuck Colson's article, rather than engaging in ad hominem.
Surprising how many,including anonys, are assuming that if anyone has any problems with "The Shack" it must be because that person has a warped view of God and is unloving, just wanting to shove things at other people.
Wade obviously has the freedom and ability to do as he chooses in his church.
But I have the freedom to disagree with his analysis of "The Shack".
He presented it on his blog and invited comments.
Why are those who disagree on whatever level accused of all sorts of things? A shame the theological ideas in opposition to "The Shack" are not engaged other than flat statements that the person questioning is ugly and crazy and denies the love of God.
"If I were not a Southern Baptist and you were the only person I knew who represented Southern Baptists, and I read all your comments pronouncing people heretics, others' writings heretical, etc . . .
I would be very uninterested in joining Southern Baptist work."
I'm sorry. I must've missed the part where that's a bad thing.
Karen, can you deny that Colson has profited mightily from using his infamy?
Oh, he had the right credentials: doing the wrong thing in service of the far-right. So he's a role-model?
If he had really become a Christian, it wouldn't have been to make a buck off of it.
Isn't it funny that most of the people who have problems with "The Shack" haven't read it, but have been spouting the B.I. lingo?
Lock-step. Same ole group.
Predictable.
Karen, what do you think will be God's judgement on those whose 'joy in Jesus' is because they have rolled in wealth using His Name? Colson is a minor player compared to some of these 'leaders' who feed off of tithe money.
These people 'owe' something, don't they? They used Christ, the sheep pay, and they got rich.
Do you think God is going to blame this travesty on the sheep alone?
Anon,
There is nothing wrong with making money!
Capitalism is the Christian way
Would you please share some of your greedy , filthy money with this poor beggar. If you dont I will have label you a greedy man/women that is not a Christian!
Robert from Geneva
Re: The two comments directed to me about Chuck Colson.
Actually I did not say anything about my opinion of him.
I expressed disappointment that no one was engaging the ideas he expressed.
Your two comments continue the ad hominem instead of addressing ideas.
As far as same ole group, predictable. That is more ad hominem. You know nothing about me. Does it make you feel any better that I was worshipping in a Presbyterian church yesterday, in which one of the pastors was a woman?
All the assumptions about B.I. get rather amusing.
Karen, Colson's integrity was in question the minute he used his infamy to make big money on the Christian 'talk-show' network.
Some 'repentence'.
Very profitable indeed.
What he did is the topic. He certainly isn't alone: look at PP and look at Mac B. Lotsa profit to be made in the shade of the cross. As far as the B.I. goes, too many bodies to count. What carnage.
It is funny to read anonymous' spewed hatred toward others as he gives wasted lip service to something he keeps calling "God's love".
Hey jackass, you better hope He doesn't judge you based on your sorry attitude towards people who disagree with you and the words that come from your lips.
Even the world sees the transformation of Chuck Colson.
Thank you Lord for the way you showed your Grace and Truth through the Life of Chuck Colson. I pray that all Southern Baptist would be live in your Grace like Chuck Colson.
You can tell a lot about folks from who they idolize.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7830
Yes .....I noticed all those who really idolize Paul Young and his book the Shack.
Robert from Geneva
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of national pastors who have had the author speak at their church, are trying to prove some kind of point. If they are under the umbrella of whatever denom. or board or ? that they answer to, for lack of a better word, they seem to be trying to make a point.
Then there are those who just do not mention the book, and dont express an opinion of it--
Authors, pastors and teachers. Those people (and I can think of many), may well have read the book or formed an opinion but they dont bring it to their blogs or sermons. I say good for them.
I think they understand it brings controversy, and it makes waves.
Worse, in instances I have seen, the book confuses some folks (including elderly family members in my own family). Those authors etc. are often smart enough and discerning and wise enough to keep the discussion on the Bible.
My pastor never names names.
He references the Word and backs up everything that way.
as it should be.
Robert:
You can tell a lot about people when all they can do is criticize!
Tom Parker,
I thought that was a evangelism method that someone uses......I think that is what I read on a previous post about the Rich pastors in the SBC!
Robert from Geneva
BTW----heresy should be critized!
Robert, what heresy are you talking about?
The Shack
denies the penal substitution of Christ.
teaches patripassionism
teaches Modalism
Just to name a few!!!!!!
Yhe Atonement
That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs.
It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt.
But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate.
The Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".
'Greater LOVE hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'
“Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired... in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.”
(Heb 10:5-6)
The writer of that sentence believes God didn’t want sacrifices.
“When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" ...then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will."
He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” (Heb 10:8-9)
The writer places the doing of God’s will as central and says that sacrifices were contrary to that will.
“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” (Heb 10:11)
He reaffirms that sacrifices are ineffectual and do not work.
The writer of Hebrews, like all the other early Christian writers, held what scholars call a “moralized” view of sacrifice. In such a view, moral behaviour is crucial and sacrifices are ineffective, and sacrificial language is used to speak of moral realities – eg ‘sanctification’ becomes a word meaning moral good works rather than its original meaning of ritual purity, the ‘sacrifice’ acceptable to God becomes an upright spirit and repentant heart rather than a beast killed with the proper rituals. Hebrews is full of sacrificial language used to speak of moral realities.
The writer makes it clear at crucial points that moral living and obedience to God’s will is his primary concern.
A careful examination of the way sacrificial language was moralized through OT history and the way it was then used by the early Christians thus shows that their sacrificial metaphors and idioms were advocating an atonement model focused on moral transformation.
Psalm 40:6 In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted,
but you have given me an open ear.
Burnt offering and sin offering
you have not required.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me:
8 I delight to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart.”
Robert:
Do I need to remind you the Shack is fiction. You sure like that word heresy.
"There is nothing wrong with making money!
Capitalism is the Christian way"
Robert, Come on. Does the NT contain any doctrinal process for governmental economic structures? Perhaps Acts 4 and 5? :o)
I found this review on Mary Burleson's blog and went to youtube and watched all 7 of them.
This man does an indepth critique of Tim Challie's 'review' of the Shack.
It is very interesting. I highly recommend watching all 7.
He finds some serious holes in Challie's review that are worth considering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8gm0C3MCU&feature=related
Click on his site on the right hand menu for all 7 video's.
BTW: Wade, your blogroll link to your mom's blog is broken.
Chapter 53
The Suffering Servant
1 Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living,
For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:1-12 (NASB77)
How Deep The Father's Love, by Stuart Townend
How deep the Father's love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That he should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss
the Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to Glory
Behold the Man upon the cross
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath had brought me life
I know that it is finished
I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from his reward?
I can not give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
(how can anyone deny what He took upon the cross? It had better be one of our foundational beliefs)
Lin,
That review is the most boring review in the history of reviews.
A man who cant even put his own name on it is a coward....period!
Does anyone not know that Tim Challies is
Reformed? What is the point here.
Who cares if the book is fiction....Tom
Does Mickey Mouse transform your life too?
Robert from Geneva
Joe:Your comment Joe is the type of thinking that should not be in the SBC. This is proven by the numbers that are going down, down, down.
Unless we accept people where they are, we will continue to go down. People just don't buy that anymore, as well they shouldn't.
Robert, M. Mouse is a character.
A cartoon character.
Not a real person.
You are worse off than we thought.
(Is this why Disney World was boycotted? M. Mouse was considered to teach heresy?)
Sheeesh
What's with the "sheeeesh"?
What are you, 12?
By the way, I am certain you know that "sheesh" is taken from "Jesus". So you are blaspheming.
I am also certain you don't care that you are blaspheming.
You probably even say "OMG" or "dad gummit" and think nothing of it.
Hee Haw - Hee Haw
"denies the penal substitution of Christ."
Sadly, no one cares about Mr. Young's views on this. It's probably not full blown heresy, but it is an essential belief to Christianity.
Is. 53.
Robert, for some reason I think your disdain for the video critque of Challies Shack review will cause more folks to actually listen to them. :o)
He sounds like the Algebra professors I had in college.
If you want to be entertained, there are always Rushdooney and Dabney and dreams of theonomy and dominionism.
To focus on 'penal' substitutionary belief as 'essential' to Christianity is not accurate.
Christians hold to the Atonement in a variety of ways. That is is substitutionary is not in question.
That it is 'penal' is not acceptance by all Christians.
Robert is wrong. His viewpoint may reflect one aspect of understanding, for a certain group, but not for all.
Robert is hollering 'heretic' once again, with no credibility.
M. Mouse
what does a baptist sound like? just wondering.
Sorry, you cant say Robert is wrong unless you happen to be God.
You dont know all the answers. He may be zealous, but you have no right to call him or anyone wrong for opposing the book.
As far as the doctrinal issues go, I will go right along with what the host of the radio program (and others) have said once they heard Mr. Young's views. They felt it deeply contradicted Christian beliefs. That may not be heretical, but I'll bet if Mr. Young stood up in many churches and said some of what he said on the interview, people would be rather concerned (as was the host). But, the host was fair and polite and I believe even Mr.Young said so.
We've had all too many people take pulpits, write books and have speaking engagements (and way out crusades), where people may have been saved attending such, but those speakers unfortunately have fallen. You can easily name lots of well knowns, whom people respected and listened to, who ended up shocking us when they fell. I wonder if some of them left signs that they were off on the wrong path? Or did people let them get by, or accept everything they said with no question. We ought to be Bereans, searching the Scriptures out. Ps. 119:104 has a lot to say too.
The one thing I havent heard on this blog is anything about prayer.
I think we'd better be about praying for anyone who has a public audience like Mr. Young does. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the book, he has a very public platform and he need the prayers. If he is holding to Biblical beliefs, no doubt his work is going to stand. If he isnt, God wont be mocked. Unfortunate that he doesnt have a church home, where we can actually see that he has any accountability to anyone. Many of us like to hear a speaker reference their pastor, it sort of tells us the perspective they are coming from. Young doesnt seem to have any memorable times in church that he likes to speak of.
And as an aside, Challies isnt the end all be all of reviews. There are plenty of other reviews, sermons, speakers etc. out there giving the thumbs down to this book. Robert posted numerous ones all along.
One I have not seen mentioned, "At the Back of The Shack" by James B. De Young
He apparently spent a lot of time with Mr. Young and they were friends. He has a lot to say, feels it is ok to read the book if you are well grounded, but expresses a great deal of concern about Mr. Young's theology and views. It's well done and thought out, but of course, if you favor the book you wont go the route of universalism.
You got it wrong. It's Robert hollering 'heretic' not anon.
He hollers 'heretic' at anyone who doesn't buy into his bag. Most Christians don't.
"If I were not a Southern Baptist and you were the only person I knew who represented Southern Baptists, and I read all your comments pronouncing people heretics, others' writings heretical, etc . . .
I would be very uninterested in joining Southern Baptist work." CHECK!
"If I were not a Southern Baptist and you were the only person I knew who represented Southern Baptists, and I read all your comments pronouncing people heretics, others' writings heretical, etc . . .
I would be very uninterested in joining Southern Baptist work."
I'm sorry. I must've missed the part where that's a bad thing." CHECK.
"Robert, you name-dropper.
Chuck Colson? When he lost his feed-bag politically, he comes after the money in religion.
Christian? Hell no.
That opportunist?
Have SOME discernment." CHECK.
and yes, i say dad gummit and don't think anything of it. :)
"Sorry, you cant say Robert is wrong unless you happen to be God.
You dont know all the answers. He may be zealous, but you have no right to call him or anyone wrong for opposing the book."
Your logic is not working for you, buddy. YOur logic would mean that Robert is God because that is exactly what he is doing here!
Dad Gummit evolved from Dod Gammit.
Dod Gammit once upon a time was said to use God's name in vain, but without actually saying it...
...because the first letter from each word was switched.
So you can continue to curse God's name if you desire. The only difference now is that when you say it you will know...
the rest of the story.
Good day.
This comment is directed to all who poo-pooh The Shack’s heresy because “it’s only fiction.” I’d like to focus on the fiction issue for a minute.
The Christian Bookseller’s Association isn’t proclaiming this book as fiction. They are proclaiming it as Christian fiction. Christian fiction is supposed to mean something. As far as I am concerned, when a book is supported by the major Christian sales organizations, it is supposed to indicate this book is without doctrinal stain. But don’t take my word for it, let’s look up what Christian fiction IS.
The definition I found online for Christian novel is “any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both. Any novel that deals with Christian themes in a positive way could also be Christian novel.”
Does The Shack illustrate a Christian World view? In my opinion it does not.
The Christian Bookseller’s Association is promoting The Shack as Christian fiction. In addition to the definition of Christian fiction, the CBA mission is "To serve Jesus Christ by equipping those called to share the Good News and make disciples through Christian retail excellence."
Does The Shack adhere to the CBA’s stated mission? No. Does The Shack serve Jesus by equipping people to share the Good News? No. In The Shack we learn that God manifests not as spirit but in human form, worse, unbiblically appears as a woman, that sin is its own punishment, and ‘God” does not punish sin, and that Jesus is the best way to heaven (not the only way.) This is not the Good News. This is bad news. On its face the notion that the Shack is good Christian fiction fails, according to the CBA’s own definition.
Outfits like CBA and others that adopt the standard of Christian Booksellers adopt a special responsibility. Christian fiction and non-fiction are supposed to mean something. The piece being marketed is supposed to have been vetted and accepted by the organization as presenting the basic principles of our faith.
So on the one hand it is OK to accept that The Shack is Christian fiction but on the other, when the heat is applied, it is OK to dispense with the “Christian” moniker and accept it because “it’s only fiction”? I feel this is a betrayal of all those whom we would hand this book to in order to serve Jesus and make disciples. In my opinion, this book would not make disciples, It does the opposite.
For what use is ‘coming to God’ as to may supporters of this book claim (meaning the end justifies the means) if readers have a flawed understanding of sin and its consequence? The issue fails on its face.
For people who accept that the book is promoted by a Christian organization but then wriggle out of the firing line by saying it is only fiction: a wriggle. Accepting The Shack as anything less than heresy accepts the failed standard of Christian fiction, accepts the corrupted mission as stated by the CBA, and betrays potential disciples.
This comment is for all the people who say that the Shack’s shaky doctrinal standards are acceptable because God is presented so lovingly; and the loving redemption evident by the end (emotion) is worth the read.
In Isaiah 6:3 the scriptures say “HOLY HOLY HOLY is the Lord of Hosts!” As far as I know, this is the only time in the bible when one of God’s attributes is repeated three times in a row. We know that God is loving, merciful, righteous, among many other attributes. But the thrice repeat for Holy is a singular emphasis.
It is good to focus on God’s many attributes, including love. But first and foremost in the scriptures is Holiness. Does The Shack focus on God’s holiness? No, from what readers consistently say they experience about God from the book is it about His love. God is indeed love, but in my opinion, The Shack’s promotion of God’s love comes at the expense of understanding that His holiness comes first. And with holiness, comes understanding of the opposite: sin.
In the book “God” says that "she" does not punish sin. Earlier I posted scriptures that illustrate that God always punishes sin. Overwhelmed with the presentation of “God” as love, and with the concomitant minimization of sin, leads the reader to conclude that no matter how he or she behaves in life, God is so loving that their sin will not be punished.
Yes, God is presented as loving in The Shack. But at what cost? It is too high in my opinion. I will never hand The Shack to any person, because it is heresy. And as I said earlier, it is heresy because it is under the aegis of Christian fiction and promoted as such. Is the "God" SO loving ad presented in The Shack, that 'she' is loving potential disciples right to death? Yes. The ends do not justify the means.
Lydia, he says fans of the book are wrong, fans of the book say he is wrong....ultimately God will decide the truth about this book.
Whatever.....
Elizabeth, good posts.
Some things I have said, and no one cared.
We can love people all the way to hell, if we're not giving them the whole truth.
Elizabeth:
The book is fiction. You can keep saying it is heresy and Robert will amen you, but that does not make it so.
Tom: I refer you back to my comment a few above regarding Christian fiction and the added responsibility Christian booksellers have in ensuring integrity in the fiction's book's presentation, and their adherence to their stated mission to present a Christian worldview. It's just two or three comments above.
LOL, here we go:
GAITHER FAMILY FEST 2009 FEATURES PAUL YOUNG AUTHOR OF “THE SHACK”
"You are invited to join Bill & Gloria Gaither along with a great group of their friends for Family Fest in the Smokies. The event, which will take place May 22-24, 2009 at the Gatlinburg Convention Center, will include three evening concerts and two worship services featuring your favorite Homecoming Friends. Also featured will be guest speakers Paul Young, author of “The Shack,” and Steve Brown, well-known Christian author and founder of the KeyLife Network."
Elizabeth Prata said
"Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always."
HEE-HAW HEE-HAW
when i say dad gummit i am not cursing God's name. period.
Happy Gram, you rock !
These idiots have no sense of humor, allow no disagreement, have no respect for anyone, especially women, and don't show anything remotely like Christian faith here on this blog. Just some hateful kind of parody of the gospel message, like if Satan rewrote it.
I'll join you in saying dad gummit, too.
Lady Wisdom. Proverbs 9. A great picture of God. I can even picture her being of a different color then me.
"s far as I am concerned, when a book is supported by the major Christian sales organizations, it is supposed to indicate this book is without doctrinal stain."
My goodness, Elizabeth. These same folks promote 'Your Best Life Now", too. And it certainly is not without doctrinal stain.
In the Lifeway stores here, Your Best Life Now had a special rack right in front when you walked in the door!
I could name hundreds of other 'stained' 'Christian' titles the "Christian" booksellers and Lifeway promote and sell.
You are a bit naive. They sell books for PROFIT.
Lydia said:
"s far as I am concerned, when a book is supported by the major Christian sales organizations, it is supposed to indicate this book is without doctrinal stain."
My goodness, Elizabeth. These same folks promote 'Your Best Life Now", too. And it certainly is not without doctrinal stain.
In the Lifeway stores here, Your Best Life Now had a special rack right in front when you walked in the door!
I could name hundreds of other 'stained' 'Christian' titles the "Christian" booksellers and Lifeway promote and sell.
You are a bit naive. They sell books for PROFIT.
--- ------ -------
Oh! So it's OK then!
"Oh! So it's OK then!"
Elizabeth, Here is what you said:
"s far as I am concerned, when a book is supported by the major Christian sales organizations, it is supposed to indicate this book is without doctrinal stain."
Honey, you are 20 years late to the party. The 'Christian' Booksellers are so far down the road of peddling apostasy in many forms that I don't even shop at Lifeway anymore. I just buy the books I want from the pagans. At least they are honest about being there just for the profit.
What is Christian about it when they sell everything from Velvet Elvis to Contemplative Prayer manuals?
Anybody can slap a fish on something and call it christian and they do! And the booksellers and Lifeway are only too happy to hawk them for profit.
If you are upset with them for The Shack, you need to add hundreds of titles to your outrage.
Lydia, you are right. But this post is about The Shack.
I don't accept the argument that just because there is so much hypocrisy and compromise to keep up with, oh well, at least we're making making money. It's not an argument that I will ever accept.
Elizabeth Prata said
"Also: you forget. I know who you are Anonymous. I always do. Always."
HEE-HAW HEE-HAW
Prata is naive for someone who bills herself as a writer.
Writers know the diff. between fiction and doctrine.
She don't.
Gram - You have the story behind dad gummit. It's not my story. I used to say it too.
If you want to continue to curse His name by using it, and even be in denial about it, that's up to you.
Do with the information what you will.
On another note: I see Jack-anonym-ass is back with the "I hate everybody who disagrees with me but God is love" nonsense.
Maybe we can this thing up to 800 comments.
"To focus on 'penal' substitutionary belief as 'essential' to Christianity is not accurate.
Christians hold to the Atonement in a variety of ways. That is is substitutionary is not in question.
That it is 'penal' is not acceptance by all Christians."
This was posted yesterday.
This is now the end of the debate for me.
Mr. Young denies this, and so do some other authors (it seems to be very emergent church).
Thanks PP blog for expressing views on this today.
Thanks to other blogs for pointing out what Is 53 is all about.
This is a serious issue, which Mr. Young decided to mention in the radio interview. It's now getting some Internet attention. Good.
It's the end of the road for me with any debate over The Shack.
Again, if he stood up in my church or many other churches and openly expressed this viewpoint, it would shock and upset many many people.
What will it take to get back to real Christianity and the basic, foundational truths?
I think satan has the church where he wants it. We're minimalizing the Word of God, we're taking our eyes off what Jesus did for us, and the Father's plan and design.
I think some folks need to deeply study the Old Testament, and look at how the practices interweave with the New. I think they need to consider all attributes of God and not just the loving side.
I'm grieved, Robert (zealous or not) is grieved, Elizabeth is grieved, and numerous others.
It is truly sad.
"Lydia, you are right. But this post is about The Shack.
I don't accept the argument that just because there is so much hypocrisy and compromise to keep up with, oh well, at least we're making making money. It's not an argument that I will ever accept."
Honey, Words are grand. And I admire your stance so when you figure out how to fix it.... besides a blog comment.... let us know. We wrote some letters, etc. but then we just decided not to buy from Lifeway until they cleaned up their act which does not look like it will be anytime soon.
BTW: For fun, go in there sometime and ask for JC Ryle or John Owen or even Pink. Chances are they will have never heard of them. But then, they are not big sellers.
Ka ching
Through all these comments, I just figgured something out. You cannot be a Christian, i.e., have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, unless you accept the penal substitutionary (or vicarious punishment, as some call it) theory of atonement as the complete sumation of what Jesus did on the cross. Wow! Since John Calvin formulated that in the 1500s, that means there were no Christians on earth, presumably between the death of the last apostle (John?) and the publication of Calvin's Institutes. How many generations is that, all in hell, because they were born too soon?
And all this time, I though salvation was a matter of who you knew, not what you knew.
Please pardon my sarcasm. Sometimes it just escapes.
John Fariss
i'm not in denial and i don't use the Lord's name in vain. period.
In the words of the famous Tom Parker...
"You can keep sayin' it, but it doesn't make it so."
"gumming" something was a reference to chewing on something, popularly it used to be a reference to toothless old hillbilly men arguing with each other. Today it's used as a term of disgust, along the line as, "oh, for Pete's Sake!", or, "For crying out loud!". It's proper use is more along the lines of, "shut up!" as in, "go chew on something to keep your mouth busy so you're not bothering me." Urban Dictionary (acceptable meaning #3)
so, you can choose NOT to say "dad gummit" based on YOUR source and i can choose TO say "dad gummit" based on my source. God knows my heart and my intent and I'm comfortable with that. :)
You are totally misunderstanding me.
I don't try to talk people out of breaking the 10 commandments. I do my best to show them the consequences of breaking the 10 commandments.
You make it sound like I'm trying to talk you out of blaspheming. Wrong!
If you want to say it, then go for it.
And if your "new source" helps to ease your conscience, then that's super.
I hope that works out for you.
no discomfort in my conscience. :)
Gram - This is getting comical.
Listen, I will stop replying. I feel like with each comment I make I am making you feel worse and worse and compelling you to relieve your conscience by replying to me.
I will note that if I were saying something I knew was appropriate, I would ignore the joker trying to tell me I'm wrong.
If I had a guilty conscience, I would reply incessantly like you are doing as I tried to convince myself that what I'm saying is "okay".
Rest east. I will leave you be.
dang. and i was going to quit first. :)
haha - Good one.
And for the record, saying "dang" will get you in trouble under my roof as well.
I have learned from the exchange though. I guess we know we are doing well when we get mocked by the world for our decisions of obedience and purity.
We have a ton of "Christian" friends that just can't understand why we won't let our daughter watch Marley and Me.
Ugh!
Penal substitution implies that Christ was God's whipping boy and God took His anger out on Christ.
A sacrifice occured. The Victim was voluntary. It was substitutionary. It was done out of love for the redemption of mankind.
God, the Father, did not 'punish' Jesus out of wrath. He accepted the voluntary sacrifice of Christ who stood in our place.
There was no 'penal' substitution.
That is a fundamentalist myth.
Myth? I beg to differ.
from gotquestions.org:
Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In His death Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.
Wade, you said, "How God can eternally love people who experience His wrath in hell is explained by Paul using different human analogies which you can hear if you listen to the CD's."
I listened to all of the CD's and I can't recall hearing him explain the wrath of God. Do you know what session?
I was disappointed in the many hours of listening to Paul Young. He really did not explain the theology promoted in the book.
Did you talk to him about his view of the cross and hell?
@ Robert who wrote,
"2. Young didn't accidentally make God a woman. Everybody acts like Young was just writing and then, oh my goodness, God just turned out to be a woman, when actually this was a premediated idea trying to make a point.
Yes, God is not gendered, but he is clearly presented as a father, something a black woman does not qualify for, no matter what you call her."
(end quote by robert)
The fact that some people, aomw males in particular, are so incredibly upset over an author depicting God as a female in a fictional work, says more about them and their possible hang ups, I think, than about the author himself, any so called "agenda" he may have, or the idea of God presenting himself in female form.
The Holy Spirit presented Himself as a Dove in portions of Scripture.
God can take on any form He pleases, I take it.
God - Father and Son- refers to Himself using female analogies at times, such as being a mama bird.
It should not bother you that an author chose to depict God as a female in a book.
If Jesus Christ had taken on a female body rather than a male one when he appeared 2,000 years ago, would you have loved Christ any less?
Maybe the reason the author uses a female figure to depict God is kind of the same reason TV script writer Joss Whedon writes so many strong female characters.
Whedon was asked by a journalist, "Why do you keep writing strong female characters into your shows?," and he replied something such as, "Because you journalists keep asking me that question."
Women being equal to men, being in power, or having power, should not seem so scary or intimidating to men.
That some of you continually focus on it reveals something about you, and I don't think that something is very flattering.
Jesus Christ was not threatened by women and did not seek to "lord authority" over them. He included them in his ministry and in his life, went against cultural norms of his day (which were sexist) and he taught them, led them, etc.
I wanted to say something else, but it's getting late, and I'm getting sleepy.
Post a Comment