http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Sun, 10 Jul 2011 02:18:58 +0000 c17163@http://sidsrecovery.org Great article, thank you again for writing. http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=extrospection_or_introspection&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17163 Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:41:10 +0000 c17135@http://sidsrecovery.org I agree with the post above and I will find more information from google. http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=shall_we_continue_in_sin_that_grace_may&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17135 Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:24:05 +0000 c17122@http://sidsrecovery.org Hi Sid, It's great to hear someone else saying what I believe. May our god, Yahweh, continue to bless you. David
It's great to hear someone else saying what I believe.
May our god, Yahweh, continue to bless you.

David]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=our_breastplate_for_battle&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17122 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:48:50 +0000 c17101@http://sidsrecovery.org Thank you.your article is very excellant. http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=be_ye_transformed&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17101 Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:04:24 +0000 c17100@http://sidsrecovery.org Hi, Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day! Have a nice day Truden Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!
Have a nice day
Truden]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=be_ye_transformed&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17100 Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:15:50 +0000 c17076@http://sidsrecovery.org Super post, Need to mark it on Digg ]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=title_8&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17076 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:16:50 +0000 c17071@http://sidsrecovery.org Perfect! http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=cooperation&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17071 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:11:08 +0000 c17054@http://sidsrecovery.org Hi Sid, I just want to thank you for the effort you put into this site. I have been blessed by your thoughts here and just wanted you to know your efforts are being blessed. blessings, terry
I just want to thank you for the effort you put into this site. I have been blessed by your thoughts here and just wanted you to know your efforts are being blessed.

blessings,

terry]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_rude_email&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17054 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:39:26 +0000 c17050@http://sidsrecovery.org This blog is awesome! http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=vitally_connected_with_god&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17050 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:11:07 +0000 c17049@http://sidsrecovery.org Hello, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=vitally_connected_with_god&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17049 Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:44:17 +0000 c17045@http://sidsrecovery.org Thanks for good post http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=vitally_connected_with_god&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17045 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:53:59 +0000 c17040@http://sidsrecovery.org I appreciate Jim's thoughts but seem to align with Sid's concerns. I could agree with Jim's thoughts but have a concern that a lot of people will take the book, as has been done with the Left Behind (LB)series, and accept it as accurate and not see it as a starting point to further study. This comes about, I believe, because many want to feel good and are ok to stay right there. How many find comfort in the idea that their departed loved one is in heaven with God as did Mack when he saw his little girl happily on "the other side". Then knowing he was there and she let him know things were ok. Why go any farther, I'm at peace and happy but is this where our peace should come from? While this book and the LB series do not reflect an accuracy of truth, many stop there and accept it as so. What is our responsibility in light of this? Do I give credibility to error with my recommendation thereby promoting that error? terry
This comes about, I believe, because many want to feel good and are ok to stay right there. How many find comfort in the idea that their departed loved one is in heaven with God as did Mack when he saw his little girl happily on "the other side". Then knowing he was there and she let him know things were ok. Why go any farther, I'm at peace and happy but is this where our peace should come from?

While this book and the LB series do not reflect an accuracy of truth, many stop there and accept it as so. What is our responsibility in light of this? Do I give credibility to error with my recommendation thereby promoting that error?

terry]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17040 Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:11:33 +0000 c17039@http://sidsrecovery.org Thank you Jim! You have given a much more complete review than I was able to do. You are correct that I focused on the theological inaccuracy, but I am also in agreement with it's relational accuracy. I also agree that both are vital. This however, creates tension for me, because of statements in the Bible that speak against Biblical inaccuracy. I respect your decision to recommend The Shack with an appropriate disclaimer. I'm just not sure if I can do that. My largest concerns are the implied (by God) irrelevance of the Bible and the notion that one can wait till after death to begin to work on saving relational issues, which implies that there is no need to do it now. Maybe your statement covers that when you said, "This will open your heart to the depth of God's love for all. It's a good starting point for a journey closer to the heart of God, but the accurate details of how that transforms a life must be found elsewhere." I'm still not sure that I can recommend The Shack, but I will continue to prayerfully ponder this... Sid
You have given a much more complete review than I was able to do. You are correct that I focused on the theological inaccuracy, but I am also in agreement with it's relational accuracy. I also agree that both are vital. This however, creates tension for me, because of statements in the Bible that speak against Biblical inaccuracy.

I respect your decision to recommend The Shack with an appropriate disclaimer. I'm just not sure if I can do that. My largest concerns are the implied (by God) irrelevance of the Bible and the notion that one can wait till after death to begin to work on saving relational issues, which implies that there is no need to do it now.

Maybe your statement covers that when you said, "This will open your heart to the depth of God's love for all. It's a good starting point for a journey closer to the heart of God, but the accurate details of how that transforms a life must be found elsewhere." I'm still not sure that I can recommend The Shack, but I will continue to prayerfully ponder this...

Sid]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17039 Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:32:39 +0000 c17038@http://sidsrecovery.org I read the book on a recommendation of a friend, and couldn't put it down. Yes, it bogged down at times, but I stuck with it, and loved the ending. It gives such a wonderful picture of God and I loved the way the author shows how God appears to us in ways that WE need to see him. The whole theme of reconciliation and forgiveness was something I needed to hear again. I personally really enjoyed the book and recommend it highly. Greg Port Townsend, Washington http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17038 Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:53:29 +0000 c17037@http://sidsrecovery.org Thanks, Sid. I enjoyed your review. I was impressed with The Shack's portrayal of God, and the book's revelation that it is often OUR judgment of God (or other people) that leaves us feeling condemned. On the deepest emotional levels the book is about quitting our toxic agitations and getting on with growing in grace. But I can also can agree with your concerns when it comes to doctrine. The Shack brilliantly reveals the truth of God's tender regard for ALL of His children, but to get there, it drops the truth about God's cause-and-effect character. God's character was transcribed into the universal laws that govern not only our relationships, but also the very physical realities of our universe. The Gospel is good news, not because the law is done away with, but because a passionate God creates a bridge for us to come back into harmony with full, healthy life. So the Law and Love both remain and they work together. In fact, the Law is Love, but not in the way we normally misunderstand love. It sounds, Sid, like you are holding out for an accurate view of Love; one that contains a more complete truth about God's character. However, Young's book is still important. Most people's view of Law and Love is so badly disconnected that when they read the two together they can only hear one or the other . . . and Law is scarier (the way most people see it) so it outshouts Love. Young has focused on Love to the exclusion of theological completeness. Emotionally, I think he is right on. Rationally, he has cut corners and even deepened some erroneous views. The book is still important as an antidote for other books that are rationally sound, theologically correct, and emotionally dead or toxic. It is very hard (impossible, I think) to change one's behaviors without changing the emotions and values that drive our behaviors. So Young's book operates well on the emotions, but is not square with the values. The book Made to Stick comes to mind. In it the authors argue that we often have to weigh the advantages of accessibility contrasted with accuracy. Most of the popular press is about accessibility. "Popular Science" reports things more readably and less accurately than "Scientific American." "Scientific American" remains obscure to the masses, because it presents too many details and specialized vocabulary for most people to wade through. So which serves science better, the one that draws many readers, or the one that retains its purity? God has the same challenge: Should He attract people to love and belonging, or show them the details of a life based on His immutable laws? We need both or we can't reflect God very well. Law without love is brutal; love without law is temporary. So what do we do with The Shack? I have given it to people saying, "This will open your heart to the depth of God's love for all. It's a good starting point for a journey closer to the heart of God, but the accurate details of how that transforms a life must be found elsewhere." I have seldom seen any book with which I totally agreed. I still recommend books that carry a fragment of thought that leads toward greater understanding. Nor have I ever found a book which was complete in its presentation of Truth (as though I could be the judge of that. :-). Even the Bible is to be read with the leading of God's Spirit. Otherwise, it is just another book which has led some to justify horrible crimes against others. So in summary, it sounds, Sid, like you are focusing on The Shack’s theological inaccuracy. I tend to see its relational accuracy. Both are important. I believe Young's book can still be read with profit. It's like a strong antibiotic to kill off the self-righteousness that grows in the hearts of some who focus only on the Law. Self-righteousness is no righteousness when you look at Matthew and Luke's themes of "judge not, forgive, go the extra mile," etc. In that way, the Shack is good and worthy of being read by those desperate for reassurance of God's goodwill. On the other hand, no antibiotic makes a good steady diet. We need to encourage people to take their new awareness of God's profound goodness and goodwill, and start the pick-and-shovel work of discovering Love in the context of Bible truth.
But I can also can agree with your concerns when it comes to doctrine. The Shack brilliantly reveals the truth of God's tender regard for ALL of His children, but to get there, it drops the truth about God's cause-and-effect character. God's character was transcribed into the universal laws that govern not only our relationships, but also the very physical realities of our universe. The Gospel is good news, not because the law is done away with, but because a passionate God creates a bridge for us to come back into harmony with full, healthy life. So the Law and Love both remain and they work together. In fact, the Law is Love, but not in the way we normally misunderstand love. It sounds, Sid, like you are holding out for an accurate view of Love; one that contains a more complete truth about God's character.

However, Young's book is still important. Most people's view of Law and Love is so badly disconnected that when they read the two together they can only hear one or the other . . . and Law is scarier (the way most people see it) so it outshouts Love. Young has focused on Love to the exclusion of theological completeness. Emotionally, I think he is right on. Rationally, he has cut corners and even deepened some erroneous views. The book is still important as an antidote for other books that are rationally sound, theologically correct, and emotionally dead or toxic. It is very hard (impossible, I think) to change one's behaviors without changing the emotions and values that drive our behaviors. So Young's book operates well on the emotions, but is not square with the values.

The book Made to Stick comes to mind. In it the authors argue that we often have to weigh the advantages of accessibility contrasted with accuracy. Most of the popular press is about accessibility. "Popular Science" reports things more readably and less accurately than "Scientific American." "Scientific American" remains obscure to the masses, because it presents too many details and specialized vocabulary for most people to wade through. So which serves science better, the one that draws many readers, or the one that retains its purity?

God has the same challenge: Should He attract people to love and belonging, or show them the details of a life based on His immutable laws? We need both or we can't reflect God very well. Law without love is brutal; love without law is temporary.

So what do we do with The Shack? I have given it to people saying, "This will open your heart to the depth of God's love for all. It's a good starting point for a journey closer to the heart of God, but the accurate details of how that transforms a life must be found elsewhere."

I have seldom seen any book with which I totally agreed. I still recommend books that carry a fragment of thought that leads toward greater understanding. Nor have I ever found a book which was complete in its presentation of Truth (as though I could be the judge of that. :-). Even the Bible is to be read with the leading of God's Spirit. Otherwise, it is just another book which has led some to justify horrible crimes against others.

So in summary, it sounds, Sid, like you are focusing on The Shack’s theological inaccuracy. I tend to see its relational accuracy. Both are important. I believe Young's book can still be read with profit. It's like a strong antibiotic to kill off the self-righteousness that grows in the hearts of some who focus only on the Law. Self-righteousness is no righteousness when you look at Matthew and Luke's themes of "judge not, forgive, go the extra mile," etc. In that way, the Shack is good and worthy of being read by those desperate for reassurance of God's goodwill. On the other hand, no antibiotic makes a good steady diet. We need to encourage people to take their new awareness of God's profound goodness and goodwill, and start the pick-and-shovel work of discovering Love in the context of Bible truth.

]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17037 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:23:44 +0000 c17035@http://sidsrecovery.org Thanks Greg and Terry, for your comments! My experience was a little different than yours (Greg). While my Bible knowledge (as well as teachers, preachers, and parents) wasn’t sufficient to give me the help I needed, it was still good (for me). It turned out that the major missing piece for me was the proper use of my will – surrender to God as I understood Him. I was already reasonably good with steps 1 and 2. Once someone got through to me on surrender, God used the rest of what I had learned from the Bible to get me started on all the rest of the steps even before I got into 12-Step. Because of this, my recovery has always been framed in the doctrines. I don’t use those doctrines when I discuss my recovery, neither were they required in my recovery, but for me, they haven’t gotten in the way, because at every step I made sure that it was all consistent with my belief system. Your differing experience is why your feedback is so helpful to me. As I think about it now, I have to agree with you. If the doctrines were not so prominent in The Shack, I probably would have been OK with it. And I totally agree with your last paragraph. Personal inventory, forgiveness, and amends were huge in the story. I should have noted that. The Shack could have been so much better if the author would have stuck to the themes he handles so well, such as the unconditional love of God, personal inventory, forgiveness, amends, and the other healing topics of recovery. It is only because he included his own theology that I cannot recommend the book. I don’t even have a problem with the author holding this theology. I just wish he wouldn’t have put it in The Shack. I also need to make it clear that this book was a blessing to me. And, I think it is wonderful that it's been a blessing to others, as well. But that doesn't change my conviction. I still can't recommend a book that promotes teachings that contradict the Bible. Considering all of this, I've decided to change my "grade" of this book from a D- to a C- Sid
My experience was a little different than yours (Greg). While my Bible knowledge (as well as teachers, preachers, and parents) wasn’t sufficient to give me the help I needed, it was still good (for me). It turned out that the major missing piece for me was the proper use of my will – surrender to God as I understood Him. I was already reasonably good with steps 1 and 2. Once someone got through to me on surrender, God used the rest of what I had learned from the Bible to get me started on all the rest of the steps even before I got into 12-Step. Because of this, my recovery has always been framed in the doctrines. I don’t use those doctrines when I discuss my recovery, neither were they required in my recovery, but for me, they haven’t gotten in the way, because at every step I made sure that it was all consistent with my belief system.

Your differing experience is why your feedback is so helpful to me. As I think about it now, I have to agree with you. If the doctrines were not so prominent in The Shack, I probably would have been OK with it. And I totally agree with your last paragraph. Personal inventory, forgiveness, and amends were huge in the story. I should have noted that.

The Shack could have been so much better if the author would have stuck to the themes he handles so well, such as the unconditional love of God, personal inventory, forgiveness, amends, and the other healing topics of recovery. It is only because he included his own theology that I cannot recommend the book. I don’t even have a problem with the author holding this theology. I just wish he wouldn’t have put it in The Shack.

I also need to make it clear that this book was a blessing to me. And, I think it is wonderful that it's been a blessing to others, as well. But that doesn't change my conviction. I still can't recommend a book that promotes teachings that contradict the Bible.

Considering all of this, I've decided to change my "grade" of this book from a D- to a C-

Sid]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17035 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:30:50 +0000 c17034@http://sidsrecovery.org Hi Sid thanks for reviewing the book and for pointing me to you wonderful blog...what a work of grace! ...I read the Shack too; my son Kris and some patients had told me about it. My reaction to it was a little different than yours. At first, it made me feel uncomfortable, as you noted, because of the flippancy and lack of dignity exhibited by the Godhead characters...this seemed a little disrespectful to me, but I tried to stick with the book and finish it anyway. But what really inflamed me the most was not that the theology was wrong, but it was that it was trying to teach theology in the first place...I really hated the implication that an understanding of the trinity was going to help me have a spiritual experience. This is because in 1977 I was a theology major, brimming with knowledge about the Trinity. Only a few years later, in 1982, I was sitting in a drug treatment ward at the Mayo clinic. I found that all my prized knowledge of the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and the Trinity did absolutely nothing to help me find recovery. I was introduced to AA there in 1982, and I eventually found recovery through total surrender to God, as I understood him. No doctrines were required. But a spiritual transformation was completely necessary if I was going to live...I am sure that your experience might have been similar. After a while, I realized that my negative reaction to the book was really just about my old resentment towards the fundementalism that I had grown up in, been a part of, and that had failed to help me get clean. When I realized that my reaction was just old business, and was able to put this in it's proper place, I actually was touched by the story...the real lesson in it for me was (in part) about forgiveness, and was about the transformation that happens after taking one's inventory...the story was about going back into the past, forgiving one's parents and forgiving those who have harmed us. This of course is a theme that I really love, and is something that saved my own life. Blessings, Greg
thanks for reviewing the book and for pointing me to you wonderful blog...what a work of grace!

...I read the Shack too; my son Kris and some patients had told me about it. My reaction to it was a little different than yours. At first, it made me feel uncomfortable, as you noted, because of the flippancy and lack of dignity exhibited by the Godhead characters...this seemed a little disrespectful to me, but I tried to stick with the book and finish it anyway. But what really inflamed me the most was not that the theology was wrong, but it was that it was trying to teach theology in the first place...I really hated the implication that an understanding of the trinity was going to help me have a spiritual experience.

This is because in 1977 I was a theology major, brimming with knowledge about the Trinity. Only a few years later, in 1982, I was sitting in a drug treatment ward at the Mayo clinic. I found that all my prized knowledge of the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and the Trinity did absolutely nothing to help me find recovery.

I was introduced to AA there in 1982, and I eventually found recovery through total surrender to God, as I understood him. No doctrines were required. But a spiritual transformation was completely necessary if I was going to live...I am sure that your experience might have been similar. After a while, I realized that my negative reaction to the book was really just about my old resentment towards the fundementalism that I had grown up in, been a part of, and that had failed to help me get clean.

When I realized that my reaction was just old business, and was able to put this in it's proper place, I actually was touched by the story...the real lesson in it for me was (in part) about forgiveness, and was about the transformation that happens after taking one's inventory...the story was about going back into the past, forgiving one's parents and forgiving those who have harmed us. This of course is a theme that I really love, and is something that saved my own life.


Blessings,
Greg
]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17034 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:57:02 +0000 c17033@http://sidsrecovery.org Thanks, Sid, for the review. I got the book and didn't get into it very well at first, in fact put it down after the first chapter. Once I started again, I read it quickly and enjoyed it. I appreciate your insight. I have to say, I wasn't totally happy with it. I didn't pick up the subtle things you mentioned or my memory has faded to quickly. I didn't, however, like the part where Mack sees his little girl and that she knew he was there. As, you said, not Biblical and that part seemed pretty blatant. I thought about the "to the law and testimony" text too, but did read on. I guess the thing that remember the most, is the closeness that seemed to come across as he related to the three. You mention this in your paragraph concerning God's unconditional and absolute love. I was intrigued by your comment "I must also report that most of the theology taught by "The Shack"." I am reminded of this truth by remembering how those who aren't Bible studiers (word??) took the writings of the "left behind" series as Biblical. Satan is so clever in his deceptions. I wonder if my oversite concerning the other false teaching of the book was missed because of my/our desire to put away the concept of our generation of God being an exacting and remembering God. We need to do all the right things to be ok with God. You know what I mean? Another thing I do remember was my feeling that the HS seemed more mystical than God or Jesus and that bothered me. I will have to pass your thoughts on to the 4 people that I have recommended this book to. Thanks again for your thoughts. I appreciated them. terry
I got the book and didn't get into it very well at first, in fact put it down after the first chapter.
Once I started again, I read it quickly and enjoyed it.

I appreciate your insight. I have to say, I wasn't totally happy with it.
I didn't pick up the subtle things you mentioned or my memory has faded to quickly.
I didn't, however, like the part where Mack sees his little girl and that she knew he was there.
As, you said, not Biblical and that part seemed pretty blatant. I thought about the
"to the law and testimony" text too, but did read on.

I guess the thing that remember the most, is the closeness that seemed to come across as he related to the three.
You mention this in your paragraph concerning God's unconditional and absolute love.

I was intrigued by your comment "I must also report that most of the theology taught by "The Shack"."
I am reminded of this truth by remembering how those who aren't Bible studiers (word??) took the writings
of the "left behind" series as Biblical. Satan is so clever in his deceptions.

I wonder if my oversite concerning the other false teaching of the book was missed because of my/our desire
to put away the concept of our generation of God being an exacting and remembering God. We need to do all the
right things to be ok with God. You know what I mean?

Another thing I do remember was my feeling that the HS seemed more mystical than God or Jesus and that bothered me.

I will have to pass your thoughts on to the 4 people that I have recommended this book to.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I appreciated them.

terry
]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=the_shack&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17033 Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:35:57 +0000 c17026@http://sidsrecovery.org Willingness. This is a great topic, one I often think about. More and more I find myself praying for those involved in the particular decision I am struggling with. My life is starting to become less about me.
This is a great topic, one I often think about. More and more I find myself praying for those involved in the particular decision I am struggling with.

My life is starting to become less about me.]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=giving_our_will_and_life_to_god&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c17026 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:08:09 +0000 c16877@http://sidsrecovery.org Excellent post! I think I went through the same thing when I hit steps 4 and 5. Our group is working through the Bible Study for Step 4 (Celebrate Recovery) so this will be a timely post to share at our next meeting as we move on to Step 5. Thanks for sharing!
Our group is working through the Bible Study for Step 4 (Celebrate Recovery) so this will be a timely post to share at our next meeting as we move on to Step 5.
Thanks for sharing!]]> http://sidsrecovery.org/12Step.php?title=breaking_out&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c16877