<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Shack&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/</link>
	<description>the publisher of Next-Wave</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:00:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/comment-page-1/#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:36:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/#comment-175</guid>
		<description>It seems that God&#039;s idea of hierarchy is different than man&#039;s. A hierarchy of servanthood?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that God&#8217;s idea of hierarchy is different than man&#8217;s. A hierarchy of servanthood?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/comment-page-1/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/#comment-174</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t read it yet - I&#039;m eager to though.  I was a little surprised by Driscoll&#039;s comments.  Every other criticism of the book I could see coming simply based on the source, but I didn&#039;t see that one coming from him.  Having read it and enjoyed it - what did you think about his comments regarding the problem of hierarchy?  The other two objections I just blow off, but I wonder what your position on that one is.

Peace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t read it yet &#8211; I&#8217;m eager to though.  I was a little surprised by Driscoll&#8217;s comments.  Every other criticism of the book I could see coming simply based on the source, but I didn&#8217;t see that one coming from him.  Having read it and enjoyed it &#8211; what did you think about his comments regarding the problem of hierarchy?  The other two objections I just blow off, but I wonder what your position on that one is.</p>
<p>Peace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Preston P</title>
		<link>http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/comment-page-1/#comment-173</link>
		<dc:creator>Preston P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://charleswear.com/2008/04/25/the-shack/#comment-173</guid>
		<description>I agree, a remarkable book.  I wept about my own great sadness and about the surprising love of God - blended together in the same drops.  I am frustrated by those who can&#039;t see the book for what it is.  On Youtube you said, &quot;Too frequently people try to take one person&#039;s wrestling with difficult thoughts and make them into something they aren&#039;t. Driscoll did that here. Clearly the Holy Spirit is not a dove and God is not an old man. But to assert that we should not use word pictures to describe the undescribable is pitifully shallow, in my opinion. &quot;  I couldn&#039;t agree more!  Thanks for posting!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, a remarkable book.  I wept about my own great sadness and about the surprising love of God &#8211; blended together in the same drops.  I am frustrated by those who can&#8217;t see the book for what it is.  On Youtube you said, &#8220;Too frequently people try to take one person&#8217;s wrestling with difficult thoughts and make them into something they aren&#8217;t. Driscoll did that here. Clearly the Holy Spirit is not a dove and God is not an old man. But to assert that we should not use word pictures to describe the undescribable is pitifully shallow, in my opinion. &#8221;  I couldn&#8217;t agree more!  Thanks for posting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

