On Books (of a Spiritual Nature)

Not sure who's still reading these, but since this has always been more like a journal for me, I'll pretend not to care too much. But just in case there's still one or two of you, I'll clean up my language and try to keep the poop references to a minimum. All that aside, I've had a lot of thoughts on reading within the past couple of days, and many of them pertain to two books in particular. So, enjoy the ramblings of one trying to make sense of things, unless of course you're not reading this. In that case, as you were.

I read the Shack a couple of weeks ago, having heard good and bad about it, depending on whom I talked to. A lot of the bad was warranted (the author couldn't find an editor so it had a shaky start), and if you take this novel as doctrine, that criticism would be as well. But I enjoyed the storytelling with a dead-on perspective on forgiveness, and a God whom we'll never have all figured out. I didn't see universalism in it, as some claim, but I saw a human being challenged to step out of the judgement seat and forgive. This is powerful stuff.

The biggest problem with the depiction of God according to critics, if I understand it, is that He is shown in a form that's too human. That's funny, I thought, because that's what kept me from finishing Wild at Heart. The author of WAH was talking about men's insecurities while (gently, I guess) blaming them on women, and interjected at some point that God is always showing us that He has what it takes. Wait a minute, I said to myself(in my head because I'm crazy, but not THAT crazy) is he saying God is insecure and needs to prove himself? Does God gloat at the mighty oak and hope we don't notice asparagus? Or, if we do notice,does he mutter something to the effect of "size doesn't matter?" I guess what I'm asking is, do we think God is a man, insecurities and all?

This (perceived) limitation of God to human form (and half that, since humanity is made up of two genders)led me to do what I do best: criticize. So if others found good in it, and insisted it helped them to be better husbands, fathers, or men of God in general, I turned a deaf ear. As Jerry Springer would say, I had baggage.* In the meantime, God spoke through whatever means He chose and encouraged me to shut up and let Him talk.

I don't think I'll finish reading Wild at Heart, but if you do, and it encouraged you, God bless. But whatever we read, whether it be by Eldridge or Young, we should be challenged and encouraged by the good, while realizing the limitations of human authors trying to catch a glimpse of the divine. And whatever it is, we need to remember the only safe reading, regardless of the author, is done with discernment.

What do you think? As always, all opinions are welcome.
Where do you draw the line with reading selections? Are some books safer than others?

*If you don't get this game show reference, you are fortunate indeed.