- Does The Shack devalue traditional Christianity? How?
- How is “traditional Christianity” defined?
- Is tradition being rejected in this book? How, and to what extent?
- Is the author saying it is necessary to revise Christianity?
Food for thought before posting your answers: (a review by Norman Geisler) “Beneath the surface of The Shack is a rejection of traditional Christianity (179). He claims that traditional Christianity did not solve his problem. Even Seminary training didn’t help (63). He insists that Christianity has to be revised in order to be understood, reminiscent of McClaren’s Emergent Church book titled, Everything Must Change. However, one might question whether it is Christianity that needs revision or Christians that need to be revitalized. One thing is certain; Christianity should not be rejected because it has some hypocritical representatives. To be sure, some Seminary training is bad, and even good Seminary training doesn’t help, if you don’t heed it. But the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Christ established the Church and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:16-18). The Shack, as gripping as its story is, trades a church occupied with people who hear the Word of God preached for an empty shack where there is neither.”
Geisler, Norman. “The Shack.” NormanGeisler.net. 13 July 2009. 17 Jul 2009 <http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html>.
Filed under: The Shack
chapter2bookstore
mkoiner
