I trekked myself.  Not that I’m really a huge fan, but it’s pretty interesting to see myself as a Vulcan

Here’s a pretty hilarious part in some outtakes from IT Crowd Season 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFE9xnDFj8&feature=related#

I’ve watched complete episodes up to Season 2 Episode 1 (they call it series in Britain) but I have seen clips from Season 2 and Season 3 too.  This show is so awesome….

I guess I would have to confess that I indulge in some TV, especially of the IT Crowd and Heroes.  Even though it’s “on demand” doesn’t make it any less addictive clearly!

My road bike is back together.  I didn’t realize that there wasn’t too much to do, just put the cables and housing back on.  I cleaned the seatpost/seat tube a bit, and put the clipless pedals back on too.

I need to buy another front wheel for my commuter though, I can’t be constantly switching front wheels from my road to my commuter.

I miss road biking.  I look forward to doing a lot of it this summer in Waterloo and maybe some in Colorado.

So here are my thoughts about the book The Shack.

I read the book last month as I was looking for a good fiction read.  I got through it in a couple weeks by reading a chapter every few nights and while doing laundry.

Someone had suggested it to me last summer as a good book when I was dealing with a bit of grief.  I bought it at Staff Conference and it was sitting in my bookshelf for a long while.  Part of the delay was because of all the controversy and stuff flying around last year on Boundless Line and Articles as well as friends’ blogs, and also the opinions of Driscoll, Challies, Mohler, and other well-known bloggers and pastors.  I wasn’t sure if I was prepared to dive in.

After reading the book, I also read an article with a interview with William Young in “Servant” magazine issue 80 (released by Prairie Bible Institute).  In one part, Young actually says “the Southern Baptists spent two weeks going through the book before their convention and issued a statement that they found no questionable theology.” PBI seems to be quite supportive of the book to the extent that they would mail a copy of The Shack to anyone who wanted to financially support the school.

Oh yeah, so my thoughts.  Primarily they have to deal with the main theme and intention of the book.  In Young’s interview in Servant, this is his answer to the question “What is the central message of the book?” — “It’s first of all about the character of God.  Is He good and is He involved?…” and it goes on.  Great, so we are pretty confident that this book intends to help us understand better God’s character.

I do believe God’s character is primarily and sufficiently revealed through His Word, the Bible.  Sola Scriptura.  If theologically solid, The Shack should affirm that.

According to The Shack, how is the character of God revealed through Scripture? It speaks of the main character Mack and about Scripture:

“In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges” (65-66).

In the book, it seems that more precedence is put on Mack’s personal experiential encounter with God than on Scripture.  Mack “meets” God and encounters three persons representing the Trinity.  They interact with Mack, they “reveal” more of their character to him through what they say and what they do and how they interact with each other.  After the experience, Mack seems to be content placing his entire understanding of God upon what he has learned during the experience.

Experience, though perhaps valuable, must be put against Scripture to be validated.  However it seems that The Shack already places a pretty low value of Scripture.

The problem with experience as foundation is that experience can be wrong or wrongly interpreted.  It makes me think of Galations 1 when Paul writes about how to deal with even an encounter with an angel who preaches a different gospel than of that revealed in the Word.  Deceptive rapidly-growing world religions have been formed on the basis of “experiencing God” and gaining new revelation.

Reading The Shack may educate you better to engage with the onslaught of Christians and non-Christians who will inevitably read it because it’s on the best-sellers list on Amazon or the New York Times.  However, I would say that despite how “fresh” this book is, or how neatly it helps with dealing with grief and forgiveness, or how many people are saying this book will change your life, The Shack is not worth reading.  You are better off spending the same time reading another book that could challenge your understanding of God’s character and his ways.

But if you do read it, let me know how you find it.  It’s a beautifully written book with a lot of good intentions, emotions, and symbols.  Just be careful because it blends reality and fiction, experience and faith, truth and opinion, all in an easy-to-read format.

I probably wasn’t going to write much about The Shack but I just read Kirsten’s post about using our minds for discernment and it made me think about all that stuff.

For Kirsten, I agree that we should all make up our own minds about what we read.  If we do not make up our own minds, then we become manipulable and “tossed around” by every wave in the sea.

The sad reality is that many people are not very discerning (because of immaturity or by choice).  And those who are discerning should make their findings and stances evident — if the tone and intention is that of love, then the undiscerning and the discerning reader alike will benefit.

This situation reminded me of my drive back from Toronto to Ottawa with Margie, and I told her that I watched the movie Monsters vs. Aliens.  The opinion that I told her was that the movie was alright but it definitely wasn’t a kids’ movie because of the many political, sexual, or sarcastic undertones with much of the humour.  And then Margie remarked that Mark Driscoll had put on his Facebook status telling people that the movie was OK but “don’t bring the kids”.  I would whole-heartedly agree!

From listening to Driscoll at Staff Conference and in a few sermons online, I don’t think he’s against discernment.  But he is very much about being direct!  He doesn’t keep his opinions, persuasions, and convictions hidden; instead he is very obvious and clear about his stance on many things whether doctrinal or cultural.  Our world actually doesn’t have enough leaders like this.

In the end, the discerning ones will listen and make their decision whether to follow his advice.  The undiscerning ones will follow without question.  Seems to me like a shepherd and his sheep.  Which is what a pastor is called to do.

The question and its implicating assumptions is this: is everything actually worth reading?  If someone is discerning, would he ever be qualified enough to a point to give directions?