I wasn’t directing that at you. I think I understood you and agree with your critique.

I also want to mention that I wasn’t trying to say you were being deliberately equivocal in my post at #21. I just think there is a real need to rightfully divide the word when it comes to “churches”—the places where Christians meet—and “going to church, from The Church, the Body of Christ.

Sorry if this reads terse. It isn’t in any way meant to be.

Just a few of points:

Regarding “freewill” vs “determinism” – no matter which you believe, the existence of evil is surely God’s responsibility. Man may “choose it”, but God designed it into the creation as a possibility. Perhaps evil is necessary solely for faith to exist.

Regarding “Universalism”: The Good News is that all men are raised. Whether or not some/all/none will be cast into eternal hell-fire can be debated theologically, but it is most definitely not the gospel Christians were entrusted with. The good news is “Life Assurance”, not “Fire Insurance”.

Regarding “God hates churches”: It is simply man’s nature to turn faith into religion. Christians are no different from anyone else in this regard. I believe the author has in mind religion as a conforming entity to worldly power.

Although there are couple of points in your review I don’t totally agree with, I think your review is excellent. It is a pleasure to read someone who doesn’t attack or demean another’s view of God, or the entity we have been taught to call God.

If more people had your tone, discussions like these would be as pleasurable as the tone you set in your original post. Your intelligent presentation seemed to permeate the comments made to your post. On top of that, you are a very good writer.

I read The Shack when it first came out and I was also somewhat uncomfortable with some of his characterizations. Frankly, I was surprised it went on to such commercial success – the last group of people I would have expected to embrace The Shack would be evangelical groups.

BTW, the part of your commentary I don’t totally agree with is the emasculation of God. The monotheistic deity is Infinite. I believe this infinite presence has no limitations or boundary whatsoever and to view this presence as “him”, is to put a limitation on one who has no limits. I’m not trying to sound “new-agey”, but God isn’t male or female, God is both. Being limited by the tool of human language man must try to articulate this magnificent infiniteness with words. Words can not express the Truth about god, but it is all we have. Jesus himself articulated this Infiniteness as “Abba” (Father) so I could be wrong, but Jesus used the language of his day and culture to articulate in words something that words can’t adequately express.

Also, I too doubt God hates religion. “He” might however disapprove to what man has made of many religions. The things that are wrong with religious beliefs systems are of man. The things that are right about them are of God.

http://moriel.org/MorielArchiv.....age-leaven

It seems that I Cor. 12 indicates that we are a part of the Body of Christ, The Church, even when we are acting contrary to being a part of the body. We are placed in the body at the point of salvation. Fellowship—meeting together—is just one of many things that a healthy member of that body does, or at least should. The act of meeting together, however, is not what constitutes our being a part of the Body. It is, or at least should be, rather, a consequent of it.

So, a non-believer walks in and joins a local church meeting. He “fellowships” with them. Is he a part of The Church? No! Even though he “went to church”. If he should attend for 30 years the situation would be the same.

Anyway, I don’t know that we are necessarily at odds as I agree that Christians should certainly fellowship. For me the important thing for Christians to be honest about is that true fellowship doesn’t necessarily (rarely, I would say) happen in what most of us know today as church meetings.