"The Shack" movie

My wife and I went to see "The Shack" tonight. In my opinion, "meh." The book was far better. A lot of folks had a lot of issues with the book, I didn't, really.

As an aside, I sat next to a talker. Not my wife Mary- the lady on the other side of me. She wasn't the normal type of irritating movie talker who might make a comment or two. Oh no. She was the movie talker who literally commented on every line, every scene. If a door opened, she declared, "the door opened." When the guy fell down she said "oops-- he fell down"- as if I needed help in figuring out what just happened on that huge screen right in front of me. She was like a gatling gun rat-a-tat-tatting footnotes with reckless abandon. Perhaps you have watched a DVD special feature with director's commentary-- well she was providing obnoxious lady commentary live and in person. If she was a Christian lady, and I think most were (it was packed) she didn't act very Christian-like. But we all have our crosses to bear. Well, I told Mary I had to vent about her or I would not be able to sleep tonight. So it's done. Thanks for listening!

Bro Todd,

More importantly this book and movie contradict the very nature of God.
I would be more concerned that our Lord is maligned, trivialized and portrayed in a secular, humanistic way. When the book first came out I was outraged and was appalled that so many Christians dismissed that very crucial aspect of the story. What will the movie do but anesthetize more people?

Sis L

The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. Proverbs 26:16

If this proverb weren't true I'd add my reason to leyoung's, and the six others.

But...

Since it is true, suffice to say that the church-going american is content with sitting in the seat of the scornful on Saturday night, and sitting in the pew on Sunday morning.

Such persons remind me of the philosophers in Paul's day;

Acts 17:19-21

So they took Paul and brought him to the Areopagus, where they asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you are bringing some strange notions to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” Now all the Athenians and foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing more than hearing and articulating new ideas.

Many church-goers I know, who I care for very much, went to see the new Harry Potter movie last month, and "The Shack" last night.

And the month before, they went to see "Wicked".

But you can be sure they'll be in church on Sunday morning!

See ya'll in church tomorrow!

https://www.lifestream.org/whos-afraid-big-bad-shack/

Todd,

The article you posted adds insult to injury. You and Wayne err, not knowing Him with Whom we have to do.

Psalm 50

16God says this to the evildoer:
"How can you declare my commands,
and talk about my covenant?
17For you hate instruction
and reject my words.
18When you see a thief, you join him;
you associate with men who are unfaithful to their wives.
19You do damage with words,
and use your tongue to deceive.
20You plot against your brother;
you slander your own brother.
21When you did these things, I was silent,
so you thought I was exactly like you.
But now I will condemn you
and state my case against you!

Todd, I am sure you'd not mind if I write a book, and also produce a movie, publicly portraying your wife Mary as a transgender, starring Madonna, Ellen Degeneres, and Lady Gaga in the leading role as Mary. The names will be changed to protect the innocent of course, but nevertheless, I am sure the audience will not be deceived, but rather be more accurately familiar with who Mary really is.

God will hear and answer them””
Even the one who sits enthroned from of old”” Selah.
With whom there is no change,
And who do not fear God. Psalm 55:19

More importantly this book and movie contradict the very nature of God.

Pastor Gabe did not read the book very closely (if he read it at all), and is lifting quotes out of context. His objections have all been answered ad nauseum by numerous writers. Obviously, one is free to side with the dissenters or supporters.

The book really challenged me in various areas- but primarily here: "How is my RELATIONSHIP with God?" Not "how is my knowledge about Him" or "how is my service for Him" but how is my **relationship** with Him? Even coming away from the movie last night, I felt convicted that I should be very much closer to God than I am, through no fault of His- only mine.

One of the primary questions the book invites the reader to address is "Is God good?" The main character in the book (remember, this is a novel, not a theological dissertation) is struggling with this question because something absolutely horrible that happened in his family. A thoughtful Christian who is honest has likely struggled with the dissonance arising from the belief in a God who we believe is good, when at the same time absolutely horrible things happen every day. I am sure that many people who reject God do so on this basis. John Stott once said that "the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith, and has been in every generation. Its distribution and degree appear to be entirely random and therefore unfair. Sensitive spirits ask if it can possibly be reconciled with God’s justice and love.” On the way home from the movie, I asked Mary about the popular worship song with the words "His love never fails, it never gives up, it never runs out on me" and whether these words were true. Because they may ring true for me, but there are millions of little children every day who are abused horribly and dying of starvation. The book does a very good job of addressing this question in an understandable way.

I am certainly not going to say that I 100% agree with every theological point in "The Shack." But I am not the author and he wrote the book as he saw fit. He never claimed he wanted to convert people to his line of thinking. If I want to I could write my own book. But if a person reads the book as a novel to get the big story and theme and not try to nitpick every little point, I believe much good can come of it.

I read the book when it came out.
It's not often that I feel like I fell into a cesspool.
Like Dan Brown's books [also read], it is a well-written not-so-subtle attack on Christianity. No surprise it's sold like hotcakes [what are those?!]
When I asked a dear sister how she could bear the First and Third Persons of the Godhead, being portrayed as women, she thought the author was just trying to remove our unnecessarily "religious notions" about God! I calmly reminded that throughout Scripture, the Lord refers to Himself as a He.

These are perilous times are indeed....

Tolu-- I am not sure that you read the book very carefully because your statement that it is a "not so subtle attack on Christianity" is ridiculous.

First, this statement makes a judgment that the author, William Young, is not a Christian which is simply not true. He claims to be a believer and there is no reason to think that he is not. Have you read any of his own statements regarding this book? If he is a true Christian, which neither you nor I have any reason to doubt, why would he write a book that is an out and out attack on Christianity?

Your primary problem seems to be that God revealed Himself to the main character as a black matronly female. The key term here is "reveal." The book no where makes the claim that God is a female and to say it does is a lie. In the story, the main character, Mack, had a drunken father who beat him and his mother mercilessly. In the story it is brought out that Mack cannot draw near to God because of his experience with his own father. So God chose to reveal himself to Mack as a non-threatening black woman. Who are we to say how God might reveal himself? The dear sister you referenced is absolutely correct.

It is important to determine the ground on which Young’s detractors, like yourself, are standing. Are you saying that the Father is male? Or are you saying that the Father should only be depicted as male?

If the claim is that the Father simply is male, then it is the detractors and not the author of The Shack who have moved beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Standard Christian theology states that God is neither male nor female. Orthodoxy should applaud the statement coming from Young’s Father figure in chapter 6 when he states, "I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature” (p. 93).

If the Father is not essentially male, then one must wonder on what basis the Father must only be depicted as male. It’s not as if The Shack is stubborn in its insistence on making the Father a female. Young goes out of his way not only to provide reasons for his choice, but ultimately the Father character is revealed through a male image. Papa (now appearing as a dignified, older male) states, "Forgiving your dad yesterday was a significant part of your being able to know me as Father today” (221).

Once again, this is a FICTIONAL NOVEL. It is a story about a man's journey of pain and forgiveness and redemption. There is nothing in the book that is an attack on Christianity, subtle or otherwise. Nor is it a treatise on Christian doctrine.

I did not read the book but I did see the movie today and I really liked it.

I did not see the attack on Christianity that some have seen, I saw a beautiful story of redemption.

Firstly, I have neither read the book or seen the film, so my comments are purely in response to the posts on here.

God exclusively 'reveals' Himself in the bible as the patriarchal head, Father, Husband, King, etc, NEVER as a female. So if that is true, why would any Christian want to depict / 'reveal' God as matriarchal (or defend anyone who does)? Further more why on earth would any Christian want to read or watch such things when we have a wealth of good biblical resources for encouragement and instruction?

I think that either knowingly or not, we are in danger of being swept along by the spirit of the age, which is anti-patriarchal and the gender neutral lie. To say God is neither male or female, may be true in the sense God is not a Man, i.e. Human, but it plays into the transgenda lie that says there is no distinction between male and female.

Yeah Dave you have to read the book.

I just re-read Exodus 3 because I wanted to double check- God revealed himself as a burning bush, not even as a person. He did not refer to himself as "father" but rather "I AM THAT I AM."

The book is not trying to dismiss or reject the fact that God is revealed in scripture as a father. I am sure the author knew he was going to get white-hot heat from lots of folks when he decided to have him revealed, in part, as a female, much more so a black female. Why do want to assign evil motives to him-- like trying to further the "transgender agenda?" The book was written quite a while back when that issue was not close to being on the front burner that it is today and it's not right to accuse him of that. Besides, like I said he was not rejecting the idea of God as Father. In my post below I even quoted: " "Forgiving your dad yesterday was a significant part of your being able to know me as Father today." That was God talking to the main character.

Are the only things you ever read or watch "biblical resources," whatever that means? If so, God bless you!

Todd,

If you read my post again, I never accused the author of deliberately seeking to futher the transgenda agenda, but I do think it plays into that agenda. To suggset it was written so long ago before was an issue is not correct, unless it was written over 50 years ago!

My comment about exclusively revealing as patriarchal is in the context of 'not female', not that He does not reveal His character in other ways. That said the point stands, why 'reveal God as female' when He never does?

Of cousre I watch and read other things other that biblical resources, but I chose NOT to read or watch things that claim to be 'Christian' that are clearly a distortion of the truth, (unless I want to research a false religion). Why would I?

As one man has said, and I think it applies in this case...

"Even a dog barks when his Master is being attacked".

Dave-

I can understand that. Some will read if to see what the fuss is about; some who do will not see what all the fuss is about; some will agree with some, but not all, of the fuss (which is where I stand) and some will think its the worst heresy ever put on paper.

I think the story and message in the book is so strong that I can overlook some of the theologically iffy areas (in my view, perhaps not others') so as not to let it ruin the story. Once again, the main gist of the novel is to try to convey the heart and love of God towards people, especially in times of great tragedy.

My big takeaway is that God wants to be far closer to me than I have ever allowed Him to be, either because I am afraid, or because I don't know how.