Of course, nothing is perfect so we should distill everything we take in, secular or not.

I have not read the book, I’ll admit that, and maybe I should. My concern is that, fiction or no, there are some serious issues about the nature of God raised in this book.

When I read that God the Father is a “she” and that Christ was not “fully God” (see above) and that the father and the son were not separated on the cross, alarm bells start ringing.

The question is, when there are defects such as these, to what extent should we encourage people to read it when clearly some levels of discernment are needed to distill what is true from what is blatantly not.

Like I say I have not read it, so am limited in what I can say, but the minute I see God portrayed as a “she” i personally feel that I’ve got better things to read.

Must we not exercise discernment over what we even attempt to read? When Driscoll was asked “should I read this book?” His answer was simple. “Dont”.

Thanks for these helpful comments. I have recently enjoyed The Shack too and although not capable of the level of theological analysis you so helpfully give, I agree with your bottom-line of it being ‘more helpful than unhelpful’. I just listened to an interview with the author on http://www.772.org in which he says that he’s been told of Christians who have been given the book by unbelieving friends excited to get them to read it! Lots to discuss and weigh up but surely better it’s out there and stirring up that kind of discussion…?

I will however be like a good journalist and admit my bias – the author is my uncle. Everyone I’ve recommended it to has loved it though.

Thanks to WatcherOnTheWall – i’d not seen that quote from the author – and have to say that I find those comments bizarre if not decidedly unhelpful – though they do go some way to explaining one or two smaller motifs in the book.

I suppose i knew that many would find the book inaccurate from a systematic theological perspective. But I think this is why it is key to remember that it is fiction.

Perhaps we should see it as an extended sermon illustration – all sermon illustrations have their flaws, especially when seeking to point us to God (again see my cross article mentioned above). But if we rejected EVERY illustration with a flaw we would never use them. And as long as we are clear and explicit about their limitations, they have a place. I hope i’ve at least pointed to both this book’s place and its clear limitations.

My hope though is that people have a generosity of spirit when they read it – and look for what is helpful as much as they look for what is not. For i was certainly encouraged and challenged greatly by reading it.

But perhaps it is all because i’m getting middle aged and have more battles and hang-ups than I can count!

In the meantime, if anyone’s interested in Trinitarian theology, check out Mike Reeves’ four introductory talks on this subject on Theology Network: http://theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god

Cheers,
Dan