Except on the flippin’ cover!

Priceless! lol

It was Mookie Blaylock’s jersey number and they were huge Mookie Fans. Little Hawks trivia to add to your nostalgia trivia.

I see the truth in what the critics are saying (though some of them are critiquing it from a purely Reformed foundation…in other words, they’d probably critique any portrayal of God that didn’t line up with Westminster). But the criticisms regarding sin and universalism are understandable.

But after finishing the book, I ultimately don’t agree with those criticisms fully. I understand wanting to have any portrayal of the Christian faith be bolstered by Scripture citations. But I also understand an author not wanting to turn a novel into a systematic text. Think how the Narnia Chronicles or Perelandra would have been lessened had Lewis included Scripture for each point where the story made a theological claim. They would’ve lost the literary power they have (particularly Perelandra and Out of the Silent Planet).

But therein lies the difficulty with The Shack. Simply put, Young is no Lewis. The Shack isn’t fictional enough to get away with not being judged theologically. If the identities of the Trinune Godhead were not so matter-of-fact (i.e. if Jesus were a Lion named Aslan or a Wizard named Gandalf) then the book could afford to be a little theologically loose. After all, The Shack is not NEARLY as much bent toward universalism as The Last Battle–but Lewis allegorized or metaphorized his depiction of the Tash-worshipping soldier coming to realize he had been worshipping Aslan all along.

So while I see the merit in some of the critic’s objections, I think the issues that the book seeks to address do not warrant such a full treatment as many critics want to see. The God portrayed in The Shack is a bit saccharine, true. But not to the point of heresy. The setting is a bit Kincadeian, but that’s more a matter of personal taste. Overall, when theological issues–particularly the way theodicy is handled–come up in the book, I find myself in agreement with the underlying theology to a large extent, as would many outside of Reformed circles.

My 2 denarii,
JMS

Perhaps that could be number 12: The Lame Attempt at Humor Guy……wait…..did I just become that guy?

My favorite line in the post:

“Talking to him is like trying to nail jell-o to the wall, only if that jell-o is heretical poison that is falling into innocent children’s mouths.”

And by the way ‘”Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.”‘ Isaiah 1:18

I think that sums it up.

Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating

No, it doesn’t. To assume so is to deny legal marital status to any couple who decides that they do not want or cannot have children. Limiting marriages only for the purpose of procreation is practically medieval.

With same sex marriage at best a man and a woman will be married as matingless opposite gender human relations.

Your point being what? That marriage is an archaic institution limiting sexual relationships to those who have then authorised by a third party?

At worst they will be married as two males performing anal sodomy, matingless “mating”.

There are a few ridiculous assumption here. You limit your condemnation to two males. What about two females who decide to marry? What about two men who marry but don’t engage in anal sex? What about a heterosexual couple who do engage in anal sex? What about a lesbian couple who enjoy anal sex with toys? If you don’t like the idea of anal sex that’s fine. Don’t have anal sex. No-one is forcing you to.

Also you should look up sodomy as a word. Anal sodomy is pretty much a pleonasm. I mean, you can’t have non-anal sodomy.