ZAGG smartbuds (3.5/5)

Let’s start with the ZAGG smartbuds. I originally bought these because the Apple earbuds that came with my iPhone began to breakdown from over use. At the time these things were 75$, but I was able to get a pretty good coupon… back when ZAGG use to give their stuff away to gain momentum. The second pair I bought second hand from a co-worker who didn’t really like them (he’s stockier than I am and said that the cordage didn’t really work for him). There are many things I loved about these earbuds and many things I didn’t…

Pro’s

1. They can be worn in a way that keeps the buds around your neck, even when not in use. This was probably the most convenient thing about these earbuds and I wore mine everyday like this. It makes it convenient for taking calls, as well as just popping in your earbuds to listen to the No Agenda Podcast (the best podcast in the universe).
2. They are very comfortable, the earbuds actually come with 4 different sets of earbud adapters, 2 sizes of the thin silicone earbuds and 2 sets of the thicker foam earbuds. I used the smallest size foam and thought that they fit the best and gave the best noise cancellation affect, great for when I was listening to Beyond the Box Podcast with Steve Sensenig and Raborn Johnson.
3. They generally sound great, bare in mind, I’m listening to mostly podcasts and the audio quality doesn’t need to be amazing for me to get what I need, but I’ve never had any major problems with the sound.

Con’s

1. The regular iPhone headphones have push button volume up/down controls and the hang-up/answer button. The ZAGG smartbuds has the hang-up/answer button, but the volume control is actually separate from the the iPhone controls, it’s a slide. It kind of gives you a little more control over the volume, since you can control the headphone volume from your iPhone and then also from your headphones. However, I found this to be a nuisance more than anything. I always kept my iPhone volume up to 100% and controlled the actual headphone volume using the slider. However, it seemed like at some points in the “slide” the volume went from just too low to just too high. I think it would have been much more sensible to just use the volume up/down controls like the Apple earbuds.
2. My first pair started to get some static, it seemed like the 3.5mm connector  started to wear down so whenever it moved in my pocket I’d hear some crackling noises.
3. I really liked that I could keep the earbud around my neck… but occasionally I’d be reminded that at any time some ninja could sneak up behind me while I’m listening to This Week in Tech and strangle me to death with my own earbuds.
4. They claim that they have a noise cancelling mic. I’m not sure how this works or if it even worked. I didn’t really detect any real noise cancelling effect apart from the foam earbuds. I could be wrong, but I did occasionally have to set the volume to the highest setting. I would think with “noise cancellation” it would have cancelled the noise around me better. This is true for both pairs I owned.
5. It’s actually kind of hard to store these earbuds. The cordage is much longer than a typical set, and there are many “hard” places that seem to get into the way of how I normally wrap a set of earphones.

Skullcandy 50/50 Earbuds (4/5)

After I accidentally broke my second pair of ZAGG smart buds (my first pair broke on their own somehow). I needed to get a new set of earbuds. It’s hard to come by a good ZAGG coupon these days, so I had to look elsewhere for my podcast listening needs. After a few search and reading some reviews on Amazon I decided to try out the Skullcandy 50/50 earbuds.

Pro’s

1. These actually have the Apple standard volume up/down control buttons. This is so much better than a slider to control the volume, I no longer have to fight for the “perfect” volume when I listen to the Freakonomics Podcast.
2. I broke my last set of smartbud because of the “around the neck” feature, I don’t have to worry about that with these, if I snag the cord on something they’ll just pop out of my ears. But if I’m not wearing them, they’ll be put in my pocket anyway. So hopefully these will last me longer than the smartbuds did.
3. Like the smartbuds, the sounds quality is great. I haven’t noticed any problems, no snapping, or crackling. Though I haven’t had these as long as my first part of the smartbuds.
4. It is much easier to wrap up these headphones in and store them, though this is only against the ZAGG smartbuds, I’m sure any traditional headphones would be just as easy as these are. It’s still a PRO because I no longer have to deal with that hassle.

Con’s

1. I don’t know why they are made this way, but their silicone earbud adapters are horrible (at least for me). They sound fine, but the problem is they have little embossed “skulls” on them, which basically makes the inside of my ear itch like crazy. It’s like having a small grain of sand in your ear. Luckily, I had all my earbud adapters from my ZAGG collection. The foam ones didn’t really work (they didn’t fit right on the earphones), but the ZAGG silicone adapters worked great, and they’re actually very comfortable. I know this is turning into a pro, but it’s a con… because I think you’ll have to buy a third-party set of silicone earbud adapaters to get a comfortable feel. Skullcandy really needs to change this (seriously, who the heck is going to see the “skull” in your ears anyway). Though I never saw this complaint in the reviews I’ve read, it might just be me.
2. These don’t have the same feature that lets you keep the earbuds around your neck. It’s not a deal-breaker, but I really did like that about the smartbuds. Though I don’t really need to worry about ninjas as much.
3. These earbuds have a chrome piece on the earbuds that actually get pretty cold and is kind of shocking when you put it in your ear. It doesn’t last long, but I don’t enjoy it very much.

So there you have it, I was able to get the Skullcandy 50/50 earbuds a bit cheaper on Amazon than the ZAGG smartbuds. Neither are perfect, but I guess if you don’t want to buy those 200$ earbuds, you’ll have to compromise in one way or another. I think I’m really going to like the Skullcandy 50/50 earbuds though, the biggest complaint I have against them is their embossed silicone earbud adapters. If it wasn’t for that, I’d probably give them 5 (out of five).

The story is about a journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (played by Daniel Craig), who is hired by Henrik Vanger to investigate the death of his daughter from 35 years ago. As he is figuring out what happens, he gets an assistant, Lizbeth Salander (played by Rooney Mara), the girl with the dragon tattoo. Lizbeth, is basically an hacker/investigator for a company. She is 23 years old but is a ward of the state because she was ruled incompetent/insane as a child. She is extremely intelligent but has had a very rough life. This movie reveals the dark side of Sweden as Lizbeth and Mikael’s fates intersect and they journey together in solving Vanger’s daughter’s death.

I wholeheartedly give this movie 5 out of 5 Circus Peanuts, with two caveats.

1) The “hacking” is not very realistic, this is typical of all movies though.
2) This movie is VERY R-rated. Rooney Mara has a few nude/sex scenes in the movie. There are also extremely graphic (and disturbing) rape/revenge scenes.

Regardless, this movie has definitely peaked my interested to the next two books in the series. I believe I’ll start reading them soon.

I also didn’t want to spend an arm and a leg for a basic cert. If I could get it cheaper than what GoDaddy sells them for I was going to go for it. I did a basic Google search and happened upon a site called “CheapSSLs.com“. CheapSSLs.com had a Commodo PositiveSSL cert for 8.95$/year…. 8.00$/yr for a 3 year cert! The only problem is I did not have a clue if CheapSSLs.com was a reputable company. I asked and searching around for people with negative experience. The only bad press I saw was some guy who clearly had no idea what happens when you order an SSL cert, and even his experiences ended on a high note with compliments to their customer service.

Well, I figured, for 36$ and 3 years of SSL protection, it was worth a shot. So, I held onto my hat and slapped down the cash plastic. It was super simple to purchase and much easier to setup than my experiences with GoDaddy’s UI. I was up in running in no time.

I was a little leery at first of the site named “CheapSSLs.com” but my experiences have definitely swayed me. I will be using them for all future SSL purchases. Thanks guys for the great prices and great experience.

P.S. I am not affiliated with CheapSSLs.com in anyway, although if they had an affiliate program, I’d probably sign up.

We ordered some Fried Green Tomatoes as an appetizers. They were pretty good, not as good as I remember them being at the Blue Willow.

Because this was our first time at Mary Mac’s, they gave us some complimentary “Pot Likker”. Pot Likker, also known as Collard Liquor, is the liquid that is left behind after boiling collard greens. It’s basically soup, it was pretty tasty with corn bread crumbled in it.

Speaking of cornbread, they gave us an assortment of breads to eat with our dinner — cornbread, yeast rolls, and cinnamon rolls. They were pretty amazing tasting. I don’t think I got a picture of them though… oops.

For dinner Kati ordered the Country Fried Steak and Gravy… it was pretty good, but she said she thinks her mom’s version is better. She also ordered butter beans and cornbread dressing on the side. The dressing was absolutely amazing!

I ordered the Roast Turkey with cornbread dressing, gravy and cranberry sauce. For my sides I ordered the macaroni and cheese and potato cakes. I was a little disappointed because I only got two small potato cakes, I think four would have been the appropriate number. The mac and cheese was probably the best I have ever put in my mouth. The entree itself was also extremely delicious.

Although there wasn’t much room in my stomach, I had to order something for desert. I decided to try out the strawberry shortcake… and I accidentally ate half of it before realizing that I didn’t take a picture, so here it is half eaten :). The shortcake made the desert! It was perfectly sweet and had a nice buttery, crunchy crust.

Mary Mac’s is definitely on the “will visit again” list. The food there was just astounding and there is so much more on the menu that looked appealing. If you are ever in downtown Atlanta, I would definitely recommend this restaurant.

If you know anything about sleep, than you know we sleep in cycles. We move in and out of a dream states and a deep sleeps. An average cycles is about 90 minutes long. The theory goes that if you wake up during your deep sleep, you do not feel as rested. If you wake up when you are in the lightest point of your sleep cycle, you will be able to wake up and get out of bed much easier. I find this to be somewhat true, depending on how much sleep I actually get. Usually I sleep about 6-7 hours each night… I usually go to bed late and get up early.

One thing that I really like about this app is that it keeps a historical record of your sleep cycles for each night. The first thing I do in the morning is look at my previous night’s sleep. Check out my graphs for this past work week:

[[Show as slideshow]]

If you look at Thursday, you will see some weird spikes around 2:30AM and 5:00AM. Those were when Gus woke me up to drink some water and then woke me up to go outside (because he drank too much water, I assume).

As much as I love this app, I think there are two major flaws.

1. The app is a basic alarm clock, which is great. The way it works is, if you need to be up by 6:30, then you set the Sleep Cycle alarm to wake you up by 6:30. It monitors your sleep cycle and when it feels you are at the most “awake” point in your cycle, it will wake you up. However, if you are in a deep sleep it will wait until 6:30 to wake you up. This is fine, the problem is that you only have a 30 minute window. So it will wake you up anywhere between 6:00 and 6:30. The problem is that the average sleep cycle is 90 minutes. There have been times when my cycle dropped to deep sleep right before the 6:00 mark and it woke me up at 6:30 while I was still deep asleep.I think it would make more sense to make the “alarm” window 45 minutes or 90 minutes… or customizable.

2. I only use this app Monday through Friday because I generally do not need to be up at a certain time on the weekends. However, I would still really like to know what my sleep cycle was like on the weekends. It would be great if I could just set it to track my sleep, then whenever I woke up and I could see what happened through the night. Currently the only way to accomplish this is to set an alarm for later than you would normally wake up. Here is an example of what the graph looks like when I woke up on my own:

I guess those two are not really major flaws… they are more like, major feature requests. Some other feature ideas would be:

• Ability to customize the alarm sound from the iPhone’s music collection.
• Enable the recording device to record whenever it detected noise. So when I am in my dream sleep, I can click to see what I may have said through the night.
• It currently allows you to share your stats by email and Facebook, should add an option for Twitter.

Well, that is about it, overall I really like this app and have already incorporated it into my daily routine. I do not think it will help me get more sleep, but hopefully it will continue to help me wake up easier.

Each chapter in Mega Belt covers various life experiences an average churcher1 would have in the Bible Belt. The chapters cover things like our Easter Sunday traditions, Ice Cream socials, Youth Group, Mega Churches, hitting Rock Bottom, and more. If you are from the North (as I am) you may find it difficult to relate to many of Gil’s experiences. However, there are times when a lot of these traditions and questions posed by Gil will reflect some of your own experiences, regardless of where you call home.

For me the first few chapters of this book were slow and fairly dry. It started to get more interesting around halfway through the book. I really felt like the last two chapters were the best chapters. May admits in his foreword that most of his readers will “hate how it ends.” [XI] Frankly, I thought the end was fine. I didn’t expect a huge conclusion to Gil’s thoughts, I felt like this book represented the beginning for Gil. I think most people on a journey with Jesus will share some of Gil’s frustrations and are probably around the same place spiritually that May left us with him.

I give this book 3 out of 5 Circus Peanuts. It is a fairly short and easy read. I did not think there was much insight was given, but May was just trying to tell a story, so you shouldn’t expect much insight.

Avatar takes place on the planet Pandora. Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a blue humanoid species, with feline characteristics. The Na’vi are also much taller and stronger than humans. Pandora is filled with wondrous flora and fauna, unlike anything seen on Earth. It also has large deposits of a rare mineral called Unobtainium.

The RDA corporation, run by humans, has landed on Pandora and is trying to harvest this rare and expensive mineral for profit. One of the largest deposits of Unobtainium is right beneath a large Na’vi tribe. The only option for RDA is to move the Na’vi to a different location, any way they can.

A scientist, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) developed a way to combine Human DNA with Na’vi DNA. These Na’vi are called Avatars. Each Avatar has a single “host” who controls it — basically whoever’s DNA they used to create it. The humans mind is then connected to the Avatar’s mind which allows the human to go out in Pandora to interact with it’s surroundings as a Na’vi might.

The main character, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is put into the Avatar program by happenstance. He is an ex-Marine, paraplegic and is used by RDA Corporation to negotiate the Na’vi’s eviction. With the promise of getting his “legs back” he becomes torn between his growing love for the Avatars and his orders.

The 3D

I really thought the 3D added to this movie, the planet Pandora was remarkably beautiful and the 3D added to its believability. James Cameron (the creator of Avatar) worked long and hard to create what he created and succeed greatly in imagining this beautiful world. This was my first 3D movie, in a long time. The last one I remember was an IMAX movie at the Bostom Museum of Science with Red and Blue glasses. Cameron actually had a special camera developed to create a new “3D” for this movie. I still felt like this 3D gave me a bit of a headache. In my opinion, the problem with fake 3D is that your brain feels like it should be able to focus on certain objects, but the director wants you to focus on different objects. In real life, if a sword point is right in your face, you can focus on the tip of the sword or the person holding it. In a 3D movie, if you try to focus on the tip of the sword, but the camera man is only focused on the person holding it, your brain freaks out and gives you headache. At least, that’s how I think it works :).

So, yes, I did leave Avatar with a slight headache, but it was worth it just to see the 3D version of this movie.

The Movie

In order to truly critique Avatar you have to compare it to Star Wars. Why? Because James Cameron’s goal with Avatar was to beat the socks off of George Lucas [1]. Cameron has actually been working on Avatar since 1995… probably before that in his mind, since he was inspired to become a director after watching Star Wars. However, the technology was not where it needed to be in 1995, so he had to sit on it… and he sat on it for a long time. But he wasn’t just sitting, he was working on helping improve 3D by convincing Sony to develop a special 3D camera. Then he had to work on getting buy-in for 3D projects from movie theatres, which required him to support other movies going 3D before he could do Avatar. He worked with a linguist to create the a language for the Na’vi to speak, they named all the flora and fauna on Pandora, with Na’vi words, English words, and Latin words. I really get the impression he has spent his whole career on trying to beat Lucas – even if it was only the past 15 years.

So, what did I think of the movie? Well, Cameron succeed in making a much better version of The FernGully. The plots between Avatar and FernGully are almost identical.If you do not remember the movie, it was animated, and put out by FOX back in 1992. I actually remember it fondly and thought it was a good movie when I was 12.

The differences between The FernGully and Avatar are:

1. The protagonists in FernGully were harvesting trees from the rain forest, not Unobtainium from Pandora.
2. The victims were magical fairies, not the Na’vi.
3. The “hero” was a logger who was accidentally “shrank” to fairy size by one of the fairies to save him from being crushed by a falling tree, not an ex-marine turned into an Avatar.

Other than that, the plots are very similar. Of course The FernGully was a lot more silly because it was a childrens movie and Avatar is much more mature. I do find the similarities/differences to be quite humorous though.

Do I think that Avatar is going to be the next Star Wars? Well, it’s hard to say. Star Wars was a like nothing ever seen before in the theatres. It was also big enough to have a franchise created from it. Avatar is like nothing ever seen before in theatres, but I’m not sure its big enough to have a franchise created from it. Star Wars took place in the Universe, not just a single planet with a single victim. In Star Wars thousands of components and characters worked together and against each other. In Avatar, it was just one group of victims, one group of protagonists, and one group of heroes. All of the success Star Wars had, plus a driving vision from George Lucas allowed Star Wars to become a huge franchise. I have no idea what Cameron’s vision is for the next “Avatar” (if there will be one)… but if he wants to beat Lucas, he needs to have one. Right now, all Avatar has is beautiful CG and a borrowed plot.

That’s not to say that Avatar was bad, it was good, it was really good. I felt very connected with the characters, the movie made me wish I was on Pandora and that I had the ability to be an Avatar, to experience what Jack Sully was experiencing. I would recommend seeing this movie, especially in 3D.

I have to give this movie 4.5 Circus Peanuts. Cameron succeeded in pouring his life work into this movie and coming out with something great… I hope he can continue the franchise like Star Wars, but I doubt it will happen. But they did make a sequel to FernGully, so I could be wrong.

Check out Speck’s website for more information about their cases and other products.

I purchased mine from TechNGnet at Amazon.

Although I do disagree that The Shack is a dangerous book to read, I agree that we should all read it with care and concern, prayerfully and critically evaluating the book against Scripture. What concerns me most about The Shack is not the book itself, but the negative reviews I have read about the book. Most of these reviewers are very influential among their respective church cultures. They have turned a whole society of Christians against Young without ever laying an eye on The Shack. Claiming that Young is promoting Goddess worship, universalism, inclusivism, modalism, and more is just inaccurate. When I read these reviews I always wonder if the reader had actually read The Shack or if they skimmed through it looking for what could be wrong with it.

In the introduction of this series, I mentioned that a recent Facebook conversation resparked my desire to write this review. During that conversation I said, “I would be interested in finding out how many people commenting on this thread have actually read the book.” I find it interesting that none of the people giving The Shack a negative review said whether or not they had read the book. The only people who actually read The Shack were the people giving it positive reviews.

What I found most scary was when someone told me that I was being unreasonable to expect reviewers of The Shack to actually read the book. This mindset seems prevalent among some Christian leaders. The justification is “when a member of my church explains the nature of God in an entirely erroneous fashion and then proceeds to tell me that the book The Shack was instrumental in formulating her ideas, I have every reason to be concerned about what she has read, regardless of whether or not I have personally read it.” To which I must respond it is very irresponsible to pass judgment and elude to discernment about something we have never experienced/read. Just because someone comes away from a book with some “off-the-wall” ideas does not mean that the book teaches those ideas. Some prominent examples would be, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentacostals, Baptists, Catholics, etc. and that is after reading/studying the Bible! Not a fictional book written by an author who admits it is purely a metaphor.

To conclude, The Shack, is definitely a controversial book. Before you pass judgment on it, please take the time to read it yourself. Read it prayerfully, discerningly, and compare it to what is revealed to us in Scripture. You may find that the negative reviews written about it are mostly out of context.

Is Young 100% correct in his theology? Probably not, but I do not expect any of us are. Young is talking about the journey we are all on towards Jesus, I do not suppose we will be perfect in our theology until Jesus comes back.

Related: Check out this interview of William P. Young from CBN.

Challies goes on to attack Young’s view of hierarchy. However, this again becomes a verbal dispute. Challies assumes because Young says that there is no hierarchy between the Trinity, then there is no submission between the Trinity. But Young never claims that, in fact, quite the opposite – Jesus does submit to Papa in The Shack. Further, in The Shack, when they discuss their relationship as the Trinity, they are discussing it as a relationship with no need for hierarchy. They have such a “good” relationship, that they can submit to one another without a predefined ranking order. This is not a Scriptural idea, but it’s not a unScriptural idea. Challies’ (and other traditional Christians) idea that hierarchy exists between the Trinity is also not Scriptural and it is also not unScriptural. Challies’ complaint is one of traditional understanding, not one of Scriptural purity – although he seems to confuse the two.

Challies brings up Young’s view of distinction, complaining that Young blurs the lines of that personhoods of the Trinity. He questions The Shack saying, “In one of his first encounters with Papa, ‘Mack
noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his’ (95). Note that these scars were present on the wrists of the Father and not just the Son.” [14] Claiming that Young believes that the Father was on the cross. However, it is quite clear that since Papa admits that he is neither male nor female, then Young is clearly using physical symbolism to represent truth. The truth that Young is claiming is that Jesus sacrifice was felt by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well. This is not too hard to believe, afterall, do not most traditional Christians believes that the Godhead was changed when God the Son became man? I do not think that Young is blurring the lines of personhood here, he is showing God the Father as a compassionate person of the Trinity.

Many follow Challies here in discussing Young’s attempt at revealing God as a female. Claiming that Young is teaching Goddess worship or worse. Challies himself Pidgeon-holes himself by saying that because God has revealed himself in the masculine in Scripture then Young has no right to allow God to reveal himself as a fat black woman in The Shack. Even though Papa admits, “I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.” (93) Later Papa reveals himself to Mack as a male figure. (218-219) Papa does this because Mack is about to go through a particularly hard time and Papa wanted to reveal himself in a way that would comfort Mack the most. This is not Goddess worship at all, this is God revealing himself in a special way to someone who needs him.

To Challies “one of the most disturbing aspects of The Shack is the behavior of Mack when he is in the presence of God.” His complaint was that Mack does not act as awe struck as Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Moses (Exodus 3:6). Although it is true that these people had a distant, even scary, encounter with God… does not the Gospel allow us to enter the presence of the Father through Jesus? Not to mention, The Shack is not about the awesome power of God. The Shack is about God comforting and teaching one of his children. Mack may not be in awe of God, but it is because of Mack’s anger towards God. There are numerous Christians in this world this very day who are angry with God. Whether or not that is right is besides the point. Young does not claim that Mack’s attitude is right – in fact – the very nature of this book is to claim that Mack’s attitude towards God is unjustified.

Challies ends this section asking, “Should God allow in His presence the very sins for which He sent His Son to die? Would a man stand before the Creator of the Universe and curse? What kind of God is the God of The Shack?” Which only indicates that Challies did not understand the point of The Shack and seemingly does not understand propitiation or sin.

Many other reviewers have claimed that Young is a inclusivist or universalist based on one specific quote from The Shack, “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” (182) Challies is one of the few reviewers that also continue the quote, “‘Does that mean,’ asked Mack, ‘that all roads will lead to you?’ ‘Not at all,’ smiled Jesus . . . . ‘Most roads don’t lead anywhere.’” (182) Challies main concern is again that Young is not strong enough here in admitting that Jesus is the only way to salvation. However, Young’s use of past-tense, “were Buddhist or Mormons…” (emphasis mine) seems to indicate that they are at least no longer Buddhist or Mormons (or Baptist for that matter). Further, within the context of the chapter and book as a whole it seems to indicate that Young is merely explaining to his reader that Jesus saves all walks of life. It’s hard to deny this fact, it is quite Scriptural.

Challies also seems to want to get into a verbal argument over trivial things. At one point in The Shack, Young writes, “[H]e too is my son. I want to redeem him” (224) – Challies is upset because he believes that redemption has already been accomplished on the cross. However, within the context of what Young wrote, Young is not using the word redeem in the same way that Challies is using it. By this time, Young has already admitted that we are all redeemed in Christ. Further, in this quote, the point Young is making is not when/how someone is redeemed. It is about our response to people who do us wrong. God is teaching Mack that when we forgive people we are handing them over to God to redeem – when we do not forgive people we then are trying to take the place of God. I do not know what Young would say about redemption, but I do not get the impression from this quote that Young is talking about the same thing that Challies is concerned about. Challies ends this section by saying

[The Shack] teaches that God does not punish sin, but that sin is sufficient punishment in itself. It opens the possibility that people can come to God in ways other than a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It obfuscates the doctrine of salvation that the Bible makes so clear and so central. It muddies the very heart of the faith.

I believe an accurate reading of this book will reveal to you that Young affirms the punishment for sin, does not open the possibility of universalism, nor does it obfuscate salvation or faith.

The impression that I get from Young and The Shack is not one that we should ignore Scripture or treat it as secondary. But that with the guidance and empowering of Jesus and the Holy Spirit we can truly understand Scripture. If that is a bad thing, than I do not know what is good.

criticizes seminary education (“Mack struggled to keep up with [Papa], to make some sense of what was happening. None of his old seminary training was helping in the least” (91).), the Bible (“God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects” (65-66).), Sunday School (“This isn’t Sunday School. This is a flying lesson” (98).), the church as a body (“You’re talking about the church as this woman you’re in love with; I’m pretty sure I haven’t met her…She’s not the place I go on Sundays” (177).), the church as individuals (“For Mack these words were like a breath of fresh air! Simple. Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands and not the sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know. Just sharing life” (178).), family devotions (“Images of family devotions from his childhood came spilling into his mind, not exactly good memories…He half expected Jesus to pull out a huge old King James Bible” (107).), theological certainty (“I have a great fondness for uncertainty [said Sarayu]” (203).), the word “Christian” as a descriptor (“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian [said Jesus]” (182).) and on and on. [6]

Challies takes a lot of liberties in his list. Especially to later elude to the idea that these concepts are “theologically sound and informed by biblical truth.” [6] You will be hard pressed to find seminary education, Sunday School, family devotions, or the word “Christian” in the Bible. Moreover, Challies is taking parts of these quotes completely out of context. On pages 65-66, Young isn’t subverting the Bible, he’s subverting the attitude we take when approaching the Bible. On page 98, Young isn’t attacking Sunday School, the Holy Spirit is talking to Mack about the intensity of what he is about to go through. On page 177, Young is not saying that the Church is not that Bride of Christ – Mack (the Character) is saying that what Jesus is describing is not at all what he sees when he goes to church on Sunday mornings. On page 178, again, Mack is simply stating what he sees about tradition church services… not at all what the Church actually is or should be. On page 107, Mack is talking about HIS experience with family devotions – Young isn’t saying that family devotions are wrong. On page 203, the Holy Spirit (calling itself Sarayu) is not subverting theological certainty, its talking about how human uncertainty leads to trust and faith in God!

Challies is doing what I have seen so many negative reviewers of this book do. They take little tidbits of sentences and use them against Young and The Shack. But if you take each of these quotes in context, you will easily find that Young is not being subversive and more often than not, Young is not even making the point that the reviewer is claiming.

Challies then goes on to say that “The reader of The Shack must be careful that he does not simply accept ‘what is,’ at least as William Young describes it, without critical thinking and spiritual discernment.” I completely agree with this statement and it applies to reading Challies article as well. As Christian I truly believe we are called to think critically and be discerning in our actions/beliefs. Challies is right, Young is being subversive when it comes to traditional Christianity, however, Young is attempting to do what Challies is claiming we should all do. Search the Scripture to find out what is and is not true. You may find that when you search the Scripture it too will subvert many of our traditions. Does that make Young wrong? I sure hope not.

I read this book a few months ago and had planned on writing a review but never got around to it. A couple days ago I was thinking about how I wanted to review this book when a friend of mine on Facebook linked to a video of Mark Driscoll’s negative review of this book. His post led to a very lengthy conversation that fueled my desire to write my thoughts about this book and write about the reviews that I have read about this book.

First, I would like to talk about my personal experiences with this book. As I said, I read The Shack a few months ago and thought it was a fairly decent read. The Shack is about an average church-goer named Mack and a horrible tragedy he goes through, referred to as the “great sadness.” Mack receives a letter from “Papa” (a name his wife used for God) asking Mack to meet him at the shack – where a pivotal part of Mack’s great sadness took place. At first Mack thought it was a cruel joke, but eventually convinced himself to go and see what it was all about. This is where Mack experienced the Triune God. To be honest, I was not too impressed with the writing style. I found myself bored and disconnected during some points of the book. At the same time, I also felt sympathy for  Mack and his great sadness. I was really interested in understanding what Young was trying to say about God and God’s relationship to mankind. I do not believe Young changed my views about who and what God is, in fact, I found myself agreeing with Young because I already believed most of what he was writing. At the same time, a lot of my views would probably be considered unorthodox, although I would say they are completely Scriptural. There are many traditional Christians in the world who would find Young’s views completely heretical (and some already have). Let me just say that I would recommend this book to anyone who does not mind having their beliefs challenged, whether they are Christian or not. I think this book would be extremely helpful to those who have gone through a great tragedy in their lives. Especially in seeing how God might be working in the background of those tragedies.

In my next few posts I am going to discuss the negative reviews that I’ve read about this book. They all usually stem around the same topics, so I am going to use Challies’ review as my primary source. In my opinion it is the most thorough and touches on all the topics that every other negative review touches on – kudos to him, right? Challies breaks up his review into four main sections: Subversion; Revelation; Salvation; and Trinity — so I will base my posts on these sections and will write a final post with concluding remarks about The Shack.

Dr. David Alan Black and his publisher (Energion Publications) was kind enough to send me an advanced copy of his new book, The Jesus Paradigm. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has started to ask themselves “Why?” when it comes to the average church-life. It is currently available at Amazon for 12.23$.

In the introductory chapter of The Jesus Paradigm (TJP) Dr. Black explains that the Church, that is to say, the Bride of Christ, has taken a wrong turn in history. The Church has prostituted itself with power, status, and wealth. American idealism but not necessarily Scriptural idealism.  Dr. Black offers a new vision for the church, a vision long forgotten, one that he calls, “The Jesus Paradigm”. The Jesus Paradigm can be simply described as “a lifestyle of sacrifice, service, and suffering for the sake of our Lord.” [14]

Dr. Black goes on to explain in the second chapter that we need to change our understanding of discipleship. The old adage “We’ve never done it that way” is purely idolatry in Black’s eyes, “the worship of tradition.” [17] Dr. Black admits that often times seminary education can have a detrimental effect on the church and its leadership.  His concern is with the over-intellectualization of some seminary teaching, specifically mentioning Eclessiology.[16] Throughout this chapter Black asks some very difficult questions about current church practices. It is interesting that the journey he takes his reader on seems to be very similar to the journey that led him to eventually write this book. Ultimately the focus of this chapter is the church’s failure to respond to the Jesus Paradigm.

In Chapter Three, Black discusses what the Anabaptists can teach us about following Christ as an example. On pages 38-39, Black lists 27 criterion that Anabaptists had for describing the life of faith. From “serving instead of ruling” to an “allegiance to Christ instead of [an] allegiance to the state.” The New Testament teaches, and the Anabaptists believed, there is no distinction between clergy and laity. “Today we find congregational participation in our gatherings squelched by an unbiblical emphasis on the ‘clergy’ and a corresponding passivity among the ‘laypeople.’ . . . the worst heresies in the Christian church have not been promulgated by laypeople but rather by professionally trained theologians.” [41, 42] Ultimately Dr. Black believes it would be beneficial for us to study the Anabaptists because their “principles can be applied to many modern problems of church life — restoring church discipline to our nominal memberships, fostering the ministry of the ‘laity,’ promoting global missions — to name a few.” [60]

The Fourth Chapter of TJP is about every member’s responsibilities. Dr. Black goes as far as to say that Church programs like the “Nursery, Children’s Church, Youth Ministry, [and] Sunday School” are not only unscriptural but they are also largely ineffective. [69] He believes it is the responsibility of the parent to nurture and teach their children the things of God. Instead they have abdicated this responsibility to the Church. Black continues, touching on subjects like every members’ responsibility to admonish one-another, every members’ responsibility to care for one-another, to teach one-another, to love one-another, and so on. Black explains that it is every member’s responsibility to ministry and missions, which is at the core of the Jesus Paradigm.

Dr. Black discusses Jesus’ leadership style in the Fifth Chapter of TJP. His goal in this chapter is to “purge our thinking from unbiblical concepts of ministry.” [88] First, Black explains that the only “Senior Pastor” mentioned in Scripture is Jesus himself. Black uses three often overlooked passages to prove this point: 1 Peter 5:1-4, Philippians 1:1, and Ephesians 4:11-12.  Black believes that “biblical eldership has no room for religious titles or exalted positions like ‘senior pastor’, ‘associate pastor’, ‘reverend,’ and the like.” Black much prefers titles like “elder” or “brother”. [91-92] He concludes this chapter by offering some question that ever member should be asking about their church traditions.

In Chapter Six, Dr. Black aims to disarm the principalities and powers of politics. He pointedly says, “Christians today must maintain an ultimate commitment to Christ and eschew loyalty to a political party — any political party.” This is actually something I have come to adopt (see Christians and the Government). Dr. Black touches on many sensitive subjects in this chapter concerning Christian politics in America. He admits that his views will probably be different from most of his readers but concludes forcefully by saying, “the religious right has become bellicose, belligerent, and militaristic is difficult to deny. The tragedy is that prominent evangelicals are at least partly responsible for helping to shape America’s utopian foreign policy and worldview.” I have a hard time disagreeing with Black’s sentiments in this chapter.

The final chapter of The Jesus Paradigm begins with a paramount question, “Are you willing to wash the feet of others?” [125] As you can imagine, this chapter does an excellent job of summing up the previous six chapters and tying the Jesus Paradigm together. Dr. Black concludes, “We are not called to be Americans. We are not called to be Baptists. We are not called to be Republicans or Democrats. We are called to be foot-washers. If you feel like you are a failure in this regard, join the club. But don’t despair. Jesus is quick to notice every simple effort to please him. And we please him most when we make sacrificial service in his name the core, not the caboose, of our lives.”

I found it hard to disagree with much of what Dr. Black wrote. He was a little more upfront than most people will like, but I think the timing is appropriate. I am the first one to admit that I am the worst at following Jesus’ example… or The Jesus Paradigm. But I am thankful that Jesus forgives me for that very shortcoming and is always by my side to help me follow him down that narrow path.