First let me list some of my concerns. If you think you will get an understanding of the Trinity by reading this book let me say that you will only get a false understanding of the Trinity. I made a number of notes as I read the book. First on page 99 Papa says (Papa is an African American woman who is suppose to represent God - I would like to comment on how the author in trying to avoid one stereo type jumps right into another) "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human." This is certainly not Biblical. Jesus became man, not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit. He then continues on page 100, "Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone." When Jesus became human He was still God and the power of the living God was still in Him.
The real shocking part of the story comes on page 110 when Jesus says, "I am the best (not only) way any human can relate to papa or Saraya" and then on page 182 He adds when He is asked if all roads will lead to Him, "Not at all" but He leaves the implication open that there are other roads. Just a few lines earlier He messes with the the verbs jumping from past to present and back again.
On page 145 he talks about hierarchy being the result of sin but there is hierarchy in the God head, read your Bible, and among angels, in the church (God's design so I guess according to this book He sinned) and in the family. This is Biblical. It is not sin.
On page 202 he seems to indicate that the Ten Commandments are sinful but misses the point that they reveal the character and nature of God. He avoids wrath and condemnation and says that it is not part of God's plan but it is contrary to Biblical teaching. God does punish sin, the Bible says so. There are so many ways that as I read this book I could not make it consistent with Scripture.
I have heard a few comments by some people that are really bothersome. One person said that the reading of this book changed their prayer life, I guess now they pray to a Black African American woman. Another said that it took the Trinity and our understanding of God out of the box. The box has been part of orthodox Christian doctrine for two thousand years but we need to take Him out of the box and put Him into one that we will define by a novel. Give your head a shake. Others have said that they finally understand the Trinity - oh you do do you. Compare this to the Biblical teaching and you will see that it does anything but give you a proper understanding of the Trinity.
I also see that there is a breaking of the commandment that you are not to make any representation of God. The commandment is clear, God must define Himself. To define God as an old man or an African American woman is totally against the commandment.
Part way through this book I suddenly thought that I was reading the fictional version of Grace Walk without the Biblical basis for what it was saying.
Why has a book like this one become so popular? People are hungry for the spiritual but they are not willing to go to the source of truth. We have become Biblically illiterate and therefore we cannot see the errors in books like this. It is not that this book is almost right because to get doctrine almost right is to get doctrine wrong. I believe it is a challenge for the church to address the deeper issue that is here and that is why does a book like this get such a following.
There is a humourous part to this. While I was reading The Shack the person who lent me the book came by with another book for me, the title, Christ in the Tabernacle by A. B. Simpson.
My recommendation is not to read the book but if you do remember that it is a novel and not the Word of God. It is not even sound doctrine.
2 comments:
You remind us that that this book is not the Word of God, and that it is not even sound doctrine...May I remind you, that this is FICTION...Not a theology text book. The author says that much before the story!
To read this book to "understand the Trinity", I agree would not give you a proper understanding...yet who DOES have a proper understanding? You? Even your own statement about Jesus and his humanity shows a limited(human) understanding.
You are correct that God the Father, and the Holy Spirit did not become man...in one sense...and yet, the author is NOT incorrect for saying "we spoke ourself into human existence..." That is the fun of the Trinity...3 in 1...They are all 3 absolutely 1 God, and 1 God is absolutely all 3. I'm not going to try explain that...but in a real sense 1 God became human, (while remaining 3) and so it is in some way correct for the author to say "we"...He obviously is using this to show the immense complexity of this thing we call the Trinity. Be careful not to jump on things so quickly my friend.
Second, you're problem with the author stating that when Jesus was on earth he had no power within himself to heal...I understand where you are coming from,(I to did a double take at this) but I feel you are again missing the point...Of course Jesus was still 100% God...BUT he was also 100% man...that's the mystery of the Incarnation. I don't have a copy of the shack with me as I write, but I seem to remember the author saying that Jesus relied on the Father for his power. And do we not get a sense of this in Scripture? That Jesus went to the Father and sought HIS will...he even said "not my will by yours be done"...He was also led and filled with the Spirit (Luke 4)...and yes, He was God Himself...In fact John says "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."...In John 14 Jesus says 'I am in the Father and the Father is in Me (apply this to your first argument as well)...but then Jesus right after says, I will ask the Father, and He will send the Helper (vs 16)
All this to say, you are trying to make simple, a theological concept that cannot be simplified to the level you wish. I am not arguing that William Youngs book is perfect theologically...But how can it be? He address issues (in a fictional setting) that are theologically very difficult, and will never be fully comprehended intellectually by the human mind. (Trinity, Incarnation--do some theological research on each of them and you'll discover many very respected theologians who can not quite put either in a nice neat box--Just because something is Orthodox, does not mean it is understood in it's entirety)
Hierarchy...I don't even want to tackle this...again...you make it sound so simple....but please, explain to me how Hierarchy works amongst a God who is ONE...and THREE. ALL ABSOLUTELY GOD. I feel you confuse Hierarchy with ROLE. Do we have different Roles in the Body of Christ?---ABSOLUTELY... Are we all Saints, and Priest?--YOU BET. Again, I feel like I get where you are coming from...but it is based on a faulty premise. I am not going to make a blanket statement that 'Hierarchy is Sin' BUT...your statement makes it sound as if there is no sin in the church--I'm a pastor, and I see plenty of sin in this earthly church! Was there not sin among the angels?...is that not why Satan and the other angels were cast out??--It was Satan's desire for "hierarchy" which caused the problem...So in a sense I can understand the authors point...(though...surely ONE is higher than all others--there I agree with you about Hierarchy)
finally--about breaking the commandment of representing God...again, please be careful...It sounds as if you are just looking for things to pick apart...are there bibles in your church that have pictures of Jesus...flannel boards, movies??? What if kids think of Jesus in the way the flannel board depicts??!!! Do you understand my point? I don't think this is what the command is getting at do you?
Continue to read and study God's Word, and I'm glad you don't just accept any "christian book"...but, be wise and discerning in your critiques please! Remember...no box, no matter how "Orthodox" can contain the FULLNESS OF GOD! That is the amazing part of worshiping a God so great and HOLY! To Him be the Glory!
Thank you for your comments. I know that this is a novel but there are too many people who treat it like it is a theological book. As I went back and looked again at the book I just asked myself what is Young's view of redemption and what I saw concerned me. Why are more people taking their theology from books and not from the Word of God? I do appreciate your comments.
Post a Comment