Looking back at my walk with God, I realize that I had my nose more into books about God rather than reading His words directly. I still have seasons of this inbalance.

In my journey recently, I have finally yielded to being with God more directly in His Word than reading others opinions and or stories. Now, I do enjoy others commentaries and stories. However, since I have been authentically motivated to read God's Word and to let the Holy Spirit interpret it for me - I have found myself to be much more discerning with grace when reading other authors opinions and stories.

It has been my experience that many of the Christ followers today tend to have their studies in more of others opinions and stories rather than getting it directly from God.

Perhaps if we put more time directly with God in His Word, prayer, and fellowship, we would have more discerning grace when we read others opinions. Thus we can read it and know what is truth and what is not with grace.

Read The Shack months ago on the recommendation of a friend who said it changed their life. Wanted to like it, but my gut kept telling me there was something wrong. Read both Tim Challis' review and the author's reply. Agree with Mr Challis. Tried to share my concerns with my friend who ended up yelling and crying in defense of the book. What? If it's just a novel, agree to disagree, right? Apparently not.

Here's my standing point of argument with the book:
If God has adequately portrayed who He is in His Word, why does man need to redefine Him? I believe the God of the Bible gave us sufficient information to know Him without us changing who He is.

I just talked to a friend who read the book and his reaction was that it called him to a new level of spiritual honesty with Jesus Christ regarding sin in his life today and in the past. By any other name, some would call that repentance.

I would agree on the "Christian Thought Police" who see a "false teacher" and a conspiracy behind every tree. In the name of discernment, and carefully selected bible verses they justify there sin of divisiveness. Don't get me wrong, there are false teachers in our culture. i.e. New Agers etc, but to use this as license to attack legitimate Christians is sinful. It's the Christian version of character assassination since you can speak w/o accountability. Simply said it's gossip.

Be careful what you write bloggers... freedom of the press does not supersede the biblical process of dealing with differences of opinion and heresy. The Lord will not support this unless the process is used, after which if there is still a lack of repentance, expose sin.

Don't underestimate the power of fiction. And don't underestimate the so-called knee-jerk reaction of conservative Christians. Also, don't underestimate the imaginations of those people.

Fiction is probably the most powerful form of writing there is. Think of all the great fiction of the past: Les Miserable, Tale Of Two Cities, Huckleberry Finn. Now think about the fiction of the present: The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, The Shack. Something is missing in our present culture - that something is a spiritual compass. Fiction not only reflects a society's values, it helps shape them. So, don't say, "It's only fiction."

And don't say the people who are against The Shack are giving a "knee-jerk" reaction. Many of us have thoroughly researched it. I have personally read it twice, taking notes. I wanted to like it, but I couldn't. Also, many of us who are against it are artists, writers and musicians - so don't tell me we lack imagination.

Maybe the people who like it lack theology.

W

People are forgetting - this is fiction. Nothing more and nothing less.
Fiction is meant to entertain. It's meant to touch the reader and possibly teach a lesson.
The main character suffered a great loss. Not only did he lose his child viciously and as a result he also lost God.
Nowhere was this book touted as religious writing nor were we led to believe it was scripturely sound. It that's what someone wants - pick up the Bible.
The lesson - the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are always there for us with open arms. We can come home any time we choose.

Dear Mr. Burchett,

I am copying your words: Those of us raised in the desert of legalism are desperate for the cool, refreshing waters of grace. Those of us who have been wounded by other Christians want more than anything to believe that Jesus does love us and our experience is not how it should be in the church. We need guardians of the truth of God’s Word but we also need those guardians to be shepherds that care and not just condemn.

Truer words have not been spoken. I came out of one of those legalistic Churches. It almost destroyed me, I gave up and wanted nothing to do with any of it!!! It has been almost four years and I still struggle with finding a Church that isn't so negative and critical!!! Former Pastors and their wives are still negative when they speak to me....never "forgetting the past". I haven't heard of or read The Shack but now I am curious and will probably get it from the library.

Thank you for your candor..I hope to see more of your articles.

Thank you for a thoughtful response to criticism of The Shack. The "attack dogs of dogma" in the blogosphere have gone a bit rabid on this one, revealing a disturbing rise in what I call CIDS: "Commonsense and Intuition Deficiency Syndrome." Challies, and other militant Reformed types, seem especially afflicted. The rapid spread of CIDS in Christendom is exacerbated through their knee-jerk, theological overreactions to a piece of popular Christian fiction. Normal Christians, unafflicted by CIDS, are able to discern that the author is exploring theological ideas, not teaching a Bible study. Even their children can understand that, and do not believe that the transcendant God of creation is a time and teletransporting, flying, talking Lion named Aslan. I graduated with honors from a conservative evangelical seminary, and am a published author, so I can throw a bit of gravitas around, too. The Shack is a just a piece of fiction. Use your God-given imagination. It's there for a purpose.

David Burchett makes some excellent points, as does William Young in The Shack. But that doesn't change the fact that Young could have made his points and accomplished his goal - to show the goodness of God and the healing that comes from a relationship with Him - without trying to redefine the Trinity, without creating a fantasy world for God to exist in, without grinding axes about all the things he doesn't like in the world, etc. As far as the people Young has supposedly "helped," it is just as likely he has undermined any authentic relationship with God in those people's lives. We cannot - CANNOT - make God into the being we want. He has to - HAS TO - remain who He is. We have to change, not He. And what Young has done is change God to make Him fit what he wants and what others, evidently, want. That is fundamentally wrong, fundamentally a breaking of the second commandment.

I don't doubt Young's heart - I doubt the wisdom of publishing a book wrought with so many problems.

"They are a very decided minority and with every strident criticism and judgment handed down, they demonstrate their lack of connection with the majority that is hurting and moving away."

The fact that the "majority" are "hurting and moving away" has nothing to do with one's "lack of connection". This is a very dangerous way to think in terms of what is right and wrong with respect to Biblical orthodoxy.. We defend Biblical doctrine based on the truth that we love and we, like the disciples, should be willing to live and die for it no matter what the majority feels or says.

This article is far from a balanced approach to the Shack. I respect Mr. Tim Challies for his time and devotion to protect the body of Christ from heretical teachings, regardless of the popularity, that could possibly deceive millions of people.

Thank you, David, for such a refreshing take on The Shack "issue". It's much appreciated.

I appreciate the more moderate response from you than those who have apparently decided they are the doctrine police and whose attitude and attacks upon a book and a man whose willingness to open his heart and life reflect something other than Christian love.

While you appear to list Challies as such a fellow voice, having read his review and extended comments and having examined the means and direction of his points, I think you're giving him too much credit.

"The Shack" has been underestimated by many like Challies (who probably is getting more noteriety for his attack than he has ever positively received for his own work standing on its own merits.) Most every major publisher too declined to publish the work. The fact is that the vocal critics of The Shack are not an equal voice. They are a very decided minority and with every strident criticism and judgment handed down, they demonstrate their lack of connection with the majority that is hurting and moving away.