or more aptly titled: my struggle to follow Jesus

Disclaimer: I really like the book The Shack. This is not an advertisement for or against it. This is simply a rant against people who think they’re being smart, but end up looking foolish. They end up looking foolish because in their zeal to knock down everything that doesn’t fit into their narrow paradigm they overlook the obvious.

I read this book.

It was really good.

Do you know why it was really good?

It’s a good story. And that’s all.

If you’re not following me yet, sorry. Let me clue you in.

I finished “The Shack” a couple of days ago. Really good story. I told some people about it, talked to others, I even posted my facebook status as, “Chuck wishes everyone were required to read ‘The Shack.’” Then someone wrote me and asked, “How do you feel about the fact that critics are saying the book isn’t scripturally correct?”

My first response was, “To which parts are you referring?” So, I began to look. Then, I googled it (sorry, Ben), and found several blogs and reviews. Then I got angry.

So many people are writing about how this book is scripturally inaccurate, and theologically incorrect. I take issue with this on two levels.

First, show me where and how. I read the book. I don’t consider myself a Biblical scholar by any means, but I graduated from Bible College. I didn’t find a lot terribly wrong with the book. In fact, most of it, in my opinion, was the simplest (from an imperfect human perspective) explanation of the relationship God experiences with Himself(ves), and how we experience relationship with Him, that I have ever seen.

But these guys (and possibly girls) where verbally assaulting the book and the author for scriptural inaccuracies. None of them cited any specific part of the book or The Bible to support their claims (this a problem for me), and most of them didn’t even have the fortitude to sign their own name to these ridiculous rants (another grevious pet peeve of mine… if you are going to say it at least have the courage to back it up with your name… anonymous comments are cowardly). Offer proof for your accusations, or don’t make them.

And second, (and this is the more egregious of the two errors) “The Shack” is a STORY! It is fiction. The writer and the book’s back cover state this quite profusely. The book was written as a novel. FICTION! It isn’t a theological treatise.

(Now, I understand [and agree with] the idea that anytime any person speaks or writes of God we are espousing our personal thoughts on God’s nature. In effect we are writing theological treatises everyday. However that isn’t what I’m referring to.)

It is a story.

And the people tearing this book apart are a problem for me for this reason. They were trying to sound smart, and may have had the best intentions, but now they look dumb (and by association the rest of us look dumb). They’re critiquing a story as if it were a thesis paper.

That’s like me going to a basketball game, watching the players, and then commenting on how poorly they played the game of football. The purpose of their activity was entirely different than the standards I am measuring them by. It’s ridiculous.

There are so many things in life that need to be corrected. So many things that can stand to be critiqued. “The Shack” is no different. But don’t review the book and tell me it’s scripturally and theologically incorrect. That’s not why it was written. that wasn’t its purpose. Tell me you think he could have done a better job with the characters. Tell me his descriptions left something to be desired.

But you can’t critique a piece of work with standards it was never meant to meet.

I would love to talk/debate with anyone about the book. About its relevancy, and the character depictions within, even the scriptural correctness, but don’t tear this guys first book (which in my humble/not-worth-much opinion is pretty impressive as a story) apart with standards it was never meant to meet.

I’m done with my rant now… I think.