Hey Michael,
First of all thanks for the Blog- I really enjoy it and get a lot of the articles. Most of the times I 100% agree with you but this one I have to disagree (in a friendly way!).

I found the Shack to be very dangerous and full of heresy. Some might disagree and that’s fine. I’ve had some correspondence with the author’s daughter and she answered some questions I had. If anyone wants to read our critiques of the book here’s a link to an article I wrote.

http://preachtoday.blogspot.com/2009/01/shack-revisited.html#links

By the way, did you know the author totally denies penal substitution…he actually said it in an interview (you can listen here- http://rock-life.com/files/shakcomp.mp3). THis kind of thinking also matches his book. Doesn’t Papa say things like “I’m not mad at anyone Mack” all throughout the book? I think that’s pretty telling.

Keep up the good work and let me know what you think of the critique if you get a chance.

In Christ,
Jim Leavenworth

CMP:

Thank you from me too.

Hello Michael

I read The Shack shortly after it was first published. I thought it was so good that I bought copies to give to my saved and unsaved family, friends, food servers, hairdressers etc. At one Bob Evans we even had an informal Shack discussion group. It was a way to open the door to a discussion of Christ and salvation. Many people then when out and bought books for their entire family.

After I had given out 30 or more copies I read many pro and con blogs. But the one by John Mark Hicks went into great detail on the story and then he did an analysis of the claimed theological errors. Since he wrote back in October 2008 it may be hard to locate all of his blogs but a good place to start is: http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/meeting-god-at-the-shack-v-forgiving-others-self-andgod/

Thank you Michael for your post.

CMP,

Thank you.

mbaker. Thanks for you comments. I have let a couple of these threads go as of late. Been so busy . . . I will try to keep a better eye on this.

CMP,

I have enjoyed your blog up until now.

Now, I see it being taken over by folks who:

(1) clearly want to have soapbox for their own uses rather than wanting to discuss the substance of a thread in a manner which relates to the subject, and gives everyone a chance to input.

(2) Are accusing others here of hurling insults at them, when they are the instigators.

(3) Pulling the ‘I’m more educated than you are, therefore you’re beneath me’ card.

(4) Post long winded rambling posts that have no point themselves, while making fun of some else’s stand. This has become such a distraction to me that I can hardly keep up with any of your threads.

To allow this to go much further in my opinion will be detrimental to your blog.

Respectfully,
mbaker

Dr.G,
I don’t think of you as an intellectual any more than I think of anyone else as one.

I was thinking last night…what is a Bible scholar?

A Bible scholar is one who studies the Bible and learns from it. So does that study have to always be in a formal setting?

A person who had limited means to a proper education is still a Bible scholar if they themselves sit down and study the Bible. This is one thing we should not limit in strict view to only the high and mighty by definition and my protests were geared toward the defense of those on the fringe.

If you study the Bible, you are indeed a Bible scholar as all Christians are called to be. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with intellectualism, but if that intellectualism pushes people into categories of “not as good as me because…” then that intellectualism has only vilified one person.

We must talk rationally, we must talk reasonably. But I do not like seeing intellectuals who imply people who take a conservative approach as mindless. Which there were people who have had those insults hurled at them. If you want to keep the peace Dr. G, don’t make the implications any more how you regard those people who you believe are not as educated as you are.

We can get along but if you will keep pushing them away if you don’t learn that not everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else. We must talk sensibly and with respect. I don’t care if you dislike me, that’s your right of course. But I will be quick to defend when I see people who have very valid viewpoints but are attacked in a pseudo-veiled attempt of ad hominem. Cheryl has very valid views and you tried to tear her apart. Greg had a question asking for help and I tried to tell him he was just as alright as anyone else and was told it was inappropriate.

But Dr. G. no one in these blogs are better or worse than anyone else, no one is more or less intelligent than anyone else. God is the giver of intelligence and He very well understands that some are not able to process information in the same way, but never will I ever say any one is dumber or smarter than me. With all the arguments and debates I never called any one else stupid and never implied it. But I did not imply any one else as arrogant, that I stated explicitly.

The debates with the others ended, we all maintained our positions and kept our ground. For the future, now Dr. G, let’s be civil.

Ad hominem…
the viewpoint of A is….
because A is ….
therefore the argument of A is invalid.

Fill in the blanks.

I apologise to Ms. K. for the perceived insult.

Will she also now apologize for all the dozens of very, very clear insults she hurled at me and intellectuals and so forth, earlier in other forumns? (As verified and noted by Eric. Z above? And as is easily traceable in past blog posts?)

To be sure, let us all be nice; and move on.

Dr. Z,
I forgive you. Can we be friends?

I note, however, Dr. G. that you still have not apologized for the offence, which was taken even if none was intended. I suggest that one would be appropriate.