someone else's thoughts on "the shack"

here is a response on a blog concerning the big hype over, "the shack."

The fuss over The Shack is coming mostly, it would seem to me, from the "very Reformed" side of the church aisle (Colson excepted). Could it be the criticism is not really about some supposed heresy (a very, very silly and specious charge) as it is about sytematics? These dogma-driven theological bullies can't stand to see a popular book that connects with normal Christians that has the audacity to be written from a more "Wesleyan" understanding of God's sovereignty. These Reformed front guard seem to be on a personal mission to denounce anything that does not conform to their narrow and sometimes neo-gnostic ideas of theology ("You must accept all of our secret codes, and only then will you really be able to understand the Bible."). I want to be loving and charitable with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but the Reformedism chant and mantra grates on my spirit. The Shack is just one more non-Reformed target for their acrimony.

I'm a 50-something, seminary-trained, conservative evangelical. I'm an analytical Biblical theologian. I read The Shack expecting to be disappointed. I was not. It's a great story. There is no heresy. It's encouraging and spiritually uplifting, and presents through artistic license a very compelling literary picture of the trinity and a comprehensible explanation of God's sovereignty. The critics you mentioned don't like anything that smacks of Wesleyan doctrine, and will reject and criticize it out of hand. The Reformedites can gather their band of critics and negativists. I, for one, hope The Shack gets a much wider audience. People need a hopeful picture of the personal and loving God who is sovereign in their lives, not a cold credalism that offers little more than a conforming frown. (from here)

I post this simply b/c i think it's well put. someone wondered my thoughts upon this book...i assume b/c of the major i am pursuing at talbot. i was actually surprised that certain individuals were not keen on this book...but were actually upset at the supposed doctrinal issues which were raised within the pages. honestly...i am getting perturbed that everything has to be pulled apart meticulously so it is aligned within the bounds of evangelical thought. i could barely hold in a groan when the pastor stated that one must open up the Word of God in order to discern if the dream they believe God has given them for their life is right. seriously? is the Bible going to tell me to continue down this certain path of education? ....trick question i suppose. but, you hear that from the pulpit every week and it begins to get frustrating b/c you are left never really knowing b/c it seems like the Bible doesn't actually address the issues you are facing. so...eventually your frustration leads to apathy...and your apathy leads to mere acceptance of the status quo of life. of the Christian life. instead of exploring a vibrant relationship w/ a living being...your passion is smushed as you attempt to discern if it aligns completely with God's word. so, i am skating on thin ice here. i do feel it. i am not chucking out the Bible...although at times it seems i want to. but, i am saying there is MORE. and...we shouldn't be scared of what that MORE could look like.

I have included the original post below. it gives you a bit of insight into the hype.

Several conservative Protestant heavyweights--Al Mohler, Chuck Colson, Mark Driscoll, and influential blogger Tim Challies--have sounded off on the dangers of The Shack's vision of God, salvation, and the Church, creating a quartet of caution for the casual Christian reader. These strong cautions are all the more notable in light of the over-the-top endorsement from one of evangelicalism's most respected spiritual sages, Eugene Peterson, which is featured on the book's back cover.

Among other things, this growing backlash broaches important questions about the proper relationship between art, theology, and the Church for evangelicals and their close kin. What does it mean for artists to be faithful to the confessional Christian traditions and communities of which they are a part, especially that largest of communions--the communion of the saints across time, space, and tradition? If we regard the Nicene Creed as a shared expression of that broad communion, what does it mean for an artist, perhaps a writer such as William Young, to be faithful to that confession?

Switching directions, we must also ask what it means for Christian traditions and communities to be faithful to artists and their craft. This, too, is a theological question: How does the Church show good faith toward those sub-creators in God's human economy whose very creative inclinations are evidence that they bear the image of a God who delights in creating? Making a place for art and the artist is a way of affirming the human and creational pattern that the Christian God calls "very good."

My hunch is that we probably see a failure to keep faith on both sides here, and that it would be a good thing for all of God's Church to discuss the when's, where's, why's, and how's of our mutual infidelities.

Along the way we might also want to pause to think about what the phenomenal grassroots popularity of an iconoclastic novel such as The Shack--1.1 million copies in print, 500,000 more to be printed in June, UK rights just purchased--tells us about the attitudes and pastoral realities churches must reckon with on the ground.

just wanted to keep ya'll in the loop.