About "the Shack"...

I read the book The Shack twice when it first came out. The book has a great emotional impact, and I certainly felt that, but I also had then and have now grave concerns about the theological errors in the story.

Many readers argued "Hey, it's just a story, not a theology textbook." Since then, William Paul Young, author of The Shack, wrote another book called Lies We Believe About God.  This book is not a story, but a clear presentation of his beliefs making it explicitly clear what he believes about God, free will, eternal judgement, etc., and that those beliefs are embodied in the story of  The Shack.  his beliefs and teachings are most definitely not orthodox. I have no plans to see the movie, although I reserve the right to change my mind. However, I most definitely cannot recommend either the book or the movie as accurate theology, or as good things for anyone to read or watch.

 Tim Challies said it better than I could. I encourage you to read his post  What Does the Shack Really Teach. which covers the relevant parts of the new book mentioned above.

The god presented in the book and movie is not the God of the Bible, and not the God revealed by Jesus. It is a god who is not sovereign, does not punish evil, and whose "love" is a limited generic feeling of benevolence.

If you felt power from the story of the Shack, please know that the God of the Bible is more powerful, more loving, but also more Holy.

Robustly Trinitarian

Mike Reeves, author of Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith, delivers a short and delightful talk on the necessary relationship between the gospel and the Trinity:




 HT: Between Two Worlds

Unity & Diversity

An insightful tweet by  @MattSmethurst:

Polytheism = diversity without unity Monotheism = unity without diversity Trinitarianism = unity and diversity, God the three-in-one.

Truth, Brother, truth!

2 Minute Trinity

The Trinity in Two Minutes from Desiring God on Vimeo.

John Piper - "The Trinity in 2 Minutes"  What do you think: Adequate explanation or not?